Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
A. P. LINGADHARI KOYA (ORDINARY) ASSOCIATION REP. V/S UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE UNDER-SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WELFARE , decided on Monday, August 10, 1992.
[ In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, W. P. 9707 Of 1990 . ] 10/08/1992
Judge(s) : M.N. RAO & D. REDDAPPA REDDI
Advocate(s) : S.Ramachander Rao.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page




a,p,lingadhari,koya,(ordinary),association,rep,of,rep,by,the,under,secretary,ministry,of,welfare,

  "1993 (1) ALT 101"  







judgment - M. N. RAO J.( 1 ) THIS Judgment will dispose of both the writ petitions as they raise common questions. The petitioner in W. P. 9707 of 90 is A. P. Lingadhari Koya (Ordinary) association represented by its Convenor Vibhuti Ramaiah. It was filed as a public interest litigation questioning the legality of an order issued by the government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo No. ll29 / Sl / 89-l dated 23-4-90 by which the Government directed that ?every case in which a claim for issue of a Scheduled Tribe Community certificate on the basis of the applicants caste as belonging to Lingadhari koya (ordinary) should be referred to Director Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute for clearance before issue of Scheduled Tribe community certificate. the memorandum also directed all authorised officers to refer all such cases to the Director Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute (for short Director tribal) before issue of certificates and all educational institutions in the State were required to insist on clearance from the Director Tribal before accepting the certificate submitted by any one as belonging to Lingadhari Koya (ordinary) tribe. ( 2 ) W. P. NO. 13992 of 91 was filed by two sisters minors represented by their father challenging the legality of a show-cause-notice issued by the Collector rangareddy District in No. C5 / 5550 / 91 dated 10-10-91. They obtained scheduled Tribe caste certificates from the Mandal Revenue Officer Balanagar mandal and Revenue Divisional Officer Chevella division that they belong to lingadhari Koya Tribe with a view to appearing for common entrance examination seeking admission to engineering colleges in the State. The director Tribal communicated certain guidelines to be followed by the authorities while issuing caste certificates to individuals claiming to be lingadhari Koyas (ordinary) and as per those guidelines the two sisters Kum. V. Lakshmi and Kum. V. Manga belong to Balasan tham caste but not Lingadhari koya tribe. By the above show-cause-notice the Collector Rangareddy called upon the two sisters to explain the reasons for the false declaration they obtained within one week from the date of receipt of the notice failing which the certificates will be cancelled on the ground of committing fraud. ( 3 ) LINGADHARI Koya (ordinary) is a sub-tribe of Koya Tribe. Lingadhari Koya (ordinary) Tribe is a listed Scheduled Tribe: Item No. 18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 as amended by the Act 108 of 1976. The constitution confers several benefits and rights on persons belonging to listed scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribesreservation of seats in Parliament state Legislatures and local bodies reservation of posts in public services and seats in educational institutions. ( 4 ) THE Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 includes groups or communities distinguished by tribal characteristics culture and their isolation from the rest of the population. All tribal communities do not find a place in the 1950 Order but ?only those whose primitiveness backwardness or isolation made them deserving of special treatment. in order to prevent the constitutional guarantees and privileges conferred on the weaker sections from being illegally cornered by persons belonging to advanced sections it was felt necessary by all State Governments to issue guide- lines and insist upon rigorous scanning before accepting any ones claims. Under the provisions of Arts. 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India notification of various castes and tribes as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was done in relation to each of the States and Union territories. In the verification of the claim of any individual as belonging to any particular caste or tribe the place of his permanent residence assumes relevance. The Government of India felt that revenue authorities who have access to revenue records are in a better position to make reliable enquiries. As regards persons born after 1950 the place of permanent abode of their parents is considered a relevant factor. Accordingly instructions were issued by the Government of India Ministry of home Affairs to all the State Governments and Union territories on 22nd March 1977. ( 5 ) FROM time to time various orders have been issued by the A. P. State government specifying the guidelines and the officers competent to issue caste certificates testifying the social status of the individuals for appointment to public services and admissions to educational institutions. At one time Members of the State Legislature and Members of Parliament from the State also were empowered besides other Gazetted Officers to issue caste certificates. In 1975 by G. O. Ms. No. 880 dated 17-10-75 the power to issue caste certificates in respect of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes was conferred only on Gazetted Officers. In modification of the above G. O. another order was issued by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 147 dated 27-4-77 to the effect that in respect of the 13 Scheduled Tribes mentioned therein only revenue officials not below the rank of Tahsildar were empowered to issue caste certificates. With regard to one particular Scheduled Caste Bariki on the ground that several individuals had obtained bogus caste certificates specific orders were passed by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 250 dated 21-11-1985 conferring the power to issue caste certificate only on the District Collector. Later on a comprehensive order was issued in G. O. Ms. No. 289 dated 28-11-86 incorporating the guide- lines the procedure to be followed the authority competent to issue caste certificates in respect of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and Backward classes. 45 Scheduled Tribes are specified in this G. O. in respect of which the authorised officer to issue caste certificate is Revenue Divisional Officer in whose jurisdiction the native place of the applicant situate. Likewise 12 scheduled Tribes are specified in para 3 in respect of which the competent authority empowered to issue caste certificate is the Mandal Revenue Officer or revenue Divisional Officer in whose jurisdiction the candidate claims nativity. Koya Tribe is not one of the 12 specified tribes in this G. O. Although Gazetted officers continue to be competent authorities to issue caste certificates in respect of Koya Tribe it appears invariably the authorities used to insist upon. caste certificates only from the Mandal Revenue Officer having jurisdiction over the native place of the applicant. This position was altered radically by the impugned memorandum dated 23-4-1990 by which the cases of all the persons claiming to be members of Lingadhari Koya (ordinary) tribe were required to be referred to the Director Tribal. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners the impugned memo is unconstitutional; if in a given case there is a misuse an enquiry can be conducted and appropriate action can be taken against the person seeking illegal advantage by producing a false certificate as to his social status but the authorities cannot ask every member of the community to get clearance from the Director Tribal. The impugned memo is attacked as violative of Articles 14 19 and 300-A of the constitution. ( 7 ) WHEN the interlocutory application seeking interim stay of the impugned memo came up for hearing before one of us (M. N. Rao J) on 29-8-80 it was represented by the learned Government Pleader that in urban areas when persons claim membership of a Scheduled Tribe the concerned authorities would bestow greater care before granting community certificates. The directorate of Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute is the most competent organisation to extend necessary assistance in scrutinizing the claims in this regard. It was not the intention of the Government to deprive any genuine member of the Scheduled Tribe from enjoying the benefits conferred by law but at the same time bogus claims should be checked carefully. He therefore stated that he would advise the Government as to what would be the proper course to be followed and the steps to be taken. Thereafter the commissioner of Tribal Welfare and Ex-Officio Secretary to the Government informed the Government Pleader that steps were being taken to amend the aforesaid memo. As no action was forthcoming in this regard an interim order was passed on 15-10-90 suspending the operation of the impugned Memo dated 23-4-1990. As a complaint was made in the affidavit that the claims of the entire community were being ignored it was felt that the matter was of sufficient importance to be decided by a Division Bench and accordingly an order was passed on 21-12-91 by one of us (M. N. Rao .) to post this case before a Division bench after obtaining the orders of the Honble the Chief Justice. Pursuant to that the matter was listed before us.( 8 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed in W. P. No. 9707/90 on behalf of the State government it was averred that the Convenor of the petitioner-Association does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe but he belongs to Balasanthu caste also known as Bahuroopi Jangam etc. which comes under B. C. a group of the listed Other Backward Classes. Lingadhari Koya is one of the sub-tribes of Koya listed at seri al No. 18 as a Scheduled Tribe by virtue of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act 1976. The memo does not prohibit any certifying officer from issuing community certificate to genuine members of Lingadhari Koya sub-tribe. It directs exercise of caution to get the claims of the applicants verified because of numerous complaints that persons not belonging to Lingadhari Koya sub-tribe of Koya tribe have been obtaining false certificates. The counter-affidavit asserts that me Convenor of the petitioner- association and some of his relations residing in Hasmathpet and Bowenpalli near Hyderabad city declared themselves as Jangams and Balasanthu and they were also granted house sites under the nomadic tribes rehabilitation programme. The very same people declared themselves as Budaga Jangam and formed an association styled as Andhra pradesh Budaga Jangam Association and are staking claims for issue of Scheduled Caste certificates. Their present attempt now is to claim membership of Lingadhari Koya sub-tribe. Non-tribals by individual infiltration on the basis of bogus Scheduled Tribe certificates and by group infiltration as one of the listed Scheduled Tribes are thwarting the benefits from reaching the genuine members of the Scheduled Tribes. A complaint was received from the A. P. Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation that the residents of Hasmathpet and Bowenpally are claiming falsely membership of Lingadhari Koya Tribe and therefore in the year 1982 the Tribal cultural Research and Training Institute Hyderabad was asked to verify the claims of the residents of the above two areas. Several instances of wrong certification as Lingadhari Koya have come to the notice of the Government and therefore the impugned memo was issued to ensure the success of the constitution scheme of the reservations for the weaker sections. The memo was intended only as a guideline to weed out the false claims. The Central government also issued necessary guidelines to all the State Governments in their Circular Letter No. l2025 / 2 / 76-SCT. l dated 22-3-77 and the validity of the same was upheld by the Delhi High Court in a decision reported in AIR 1986 delhi 377. ( 9 ) ATTHE time of hearing of arguments on the interlocutory application it was suggested that a viable alternative to the procedure contemplated in the memo dated 23-4-90 could be explored. Already a comprehensive order issued in g. O. Ms. No. 289 dated 28-11-86 incorporating the guidelines for issue of caste certificates in respect of certain castes and tribes specified therein was holding the field. Keeping these guidelines in view the State Government modified the memo dated 23-4-90 by issuing another memo No. 19410 / 51/90-11 dated 26-2-91. Paragraph 4 of the memo dated 26-2-91 lays down that:. . . . . . IN cases of persons claiming to belong to Lingadhari Koya (Ordinary) community only an officer not below the rank of Revenue Divisional officer or Sub-Collector/collector of the Division/district in whose jurisdiction the community seekers claim nativity is empowered to issue community certificate. A check-list together with the guidelines for the above certifying authorities is appended. the certifying officers accordingly are directed to examine the claims of each certificate seeker with reference to the above check-list and guidelines and issue scheduled Tribe community certificate only if they are satisfied that the claims of the candidate are genuine. The guidelines refer to a decision of the Supreme court reported in AIR 1980 SC 150 which lays down the proposition that the communities mentioned against a specified entry in the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act 1976 are those which have mutual affinity amongst them. The habitat of Koya Tribeforest tracks flanking the river Godavari and its tributeriesthe names of sub-tribes their characteristic features and social customs are mentioned in the guidelines. Lingadhari Koya being a sub-tribe of Koya Tribe the guidelines lay down that the members of lingadhari Koya also possess the same characteristics as other Koyas with the main difference that the Lingadhari Koyas once followed shaivism and therefore they used to wear Shivalingas around their neck. The certifying officers are advised to exercise caution before issuing community certificates to people from outside the traditional habitat of Koya Tribe. They are particularly warned about a section of Balasanthu community which is called Bahuroopi or pagativeshagallu who are traditional entertainers to the masses and in the attire of Lingadhari Koya they are claiming membership of that sub-tribe. The characteristic features of Balasanthu caste and the surnames of the prominent sects of the community are also mentioned in the guidelines. The cheque-list contains four columns. It reads: ?check list for issue of Scheduled Tribe Community certificate for persons claiming to belong to Koya or Lingadhari Koya (Ordinary) tribe.. Verified that the family of the applicant ordinarily resides in the village/town/city which comes under the jurisdiction of competent authority. (a) On the strength of Village Assistant/village Officer certificate (enclose certificate ). (b) Land record particulars: Survey No. Location Patta No. Location. (c) House particulars: Own House/rented house. House No. /poor No. (d) Ration Card No.. Verified the community claim of the applicant in the light of the guidelines issued on Koya or Lingadhari Koya tribe.. Satisfied that the Koya/lingadhari Koya community which the applicant claims to belong exists in the jurisdiction of the competent authority. (a) On the basis of Census records (b) Information from Tribal Welfare Department. IV. Verified and satisfied that the applicant really belongs to the Koya/ lingadhari Koya (Ordinary community to which he claims to belong. ( 10 ) AS the earlier G. O. Ms. No. 289 dated 28-11-86 contained comprehensive guidelines and procedure for issue of community certificates the Government felt that the aforesaid G. O. should be amended in the light of the second memorandum dated 26-2-91 as regards certification of claims of Koya Tribe and lingadhari Koya sub-tribe.- Accordingly G. O. Ms. No. 138 dated 29-5-91 was issued empowering ?officers not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer or Sub- collector of the Division/collector of the District in whose jurisdiction the community certificate seekers claim nativity ?to issue certificates after examining the claims with reference to the check-list and guidelines appended to G. O. Ms. No. 138. The same check-list and guidelines which formed part of the second memorandum dated 26-2-91 are appended to the G. O. dated 29-5-91. This G. O. is challenged on the ground that the guidelines and check-list are more onerous and arbitrary than the impugned memo dated 23-4-90. ( 11 ) IN the additional counter-affidavit filed by the State Government it is asserted that conferring power on higher authorities to issue caste certificate does not affect the rights of the members of any community. The G. O. was issued in view of the complication involved in identifying persons belonging to certain communities. ( 12 ) SHRI Ramchander Rao learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the guise of defining or determining the eligibility criteria for membership of a particular community the Government in the purported exercise of its discretion cannot create a situation resulting in the destruction of the constitutional protections and statutory benefits conferred on a class of citizens. The impugned action amounts to victimising one community and depriving the advantages conferred on the members of the community by law and the same is therefore liable to be struck down as being arbitrary capricious and whimsical. It is not possible to the authorities to identify with reference to the guidelines issued in the impugned G. O. as to who are the members of lingadhari Koya sub-tribe and even if such an exercise is possible it takes unduly a long time with the consequence of the certificate seekers losing all the benefits because of the time factor and therefore this Court should itself evolve scientific and precise guidelines for easy identification of the members of the tribe the learned counsel urges. ( 13 ) THE community Lingadhari Koya (ordinary) was included for the first time in the list of Scheduled Tribes by virtue of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment Act) 1976 (Act 108/76 ). Entry 18 to the constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 as amended by Section 4 of the above Act reads:18. Koya Goud Rajah Rasha Koya Lingadhari Koya (ordinary) kottu Koya Bhine Koya Rajkoya. as per the constitutional mandate contained in Art. 342 (l) the public notification issued by the the President after consultation with the Governor in relation to a State shall:specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that state. . . . when the Bill was introduced in Parliament in 1967 for amendment of the schedule to the Constitution Scheduled Tribes Order 1950 the matter was referred to a Joint Select Committee and the Committee in its report at paragraph 20 (ii) after referring to the language of Article 342 (1) observed: ?each of the Scheduled Tribes Orders have been modified accordingly and in the lists of Scheduled Tribes the main tdadaji vs. Sukhdeobabu ribe name is written first followed by the synonyms and sub-tribes in alphabetical order. the Bill ultimately resulted in Act 108/76. In the returned candidate in the election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Armori Constituency in Chandrapur district belonged to Kshetriya bidwaik Mana community. After Act No. 108 / 76 came into force Mana community became one of the sub-tribes of Gond Tribe under Entry 22 to the constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950. The returned candidate claimed that he was a member of a Scheduled Tribe as he belongs to Mana community and therefore his election could not be questioned on the ground that he did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe. After referring to the report of the Joint Select committee of Parliament which could be looked into to ascertain the circumstances in which several communities were grouped under one Entry or the other the Supreme Court observed:. . . . . . IN certain entries only one community is mentioned and in certain others two or more communities are mentioned. It is obvious that certain communities have been grouped together under a single entry in the light of Art. 342 of the Constitution which requires parts of or groups within a tribal community also to be specified in the Order issued thereunder. It is therefore reasonable to hold that the communities mentioned against any specific entry are those which have mutual affinity amongst them. proceeding further the Court observed: ?a reading of the Schedule to the Order also shows that where there are two communities with the same name one having affinity with a tribe and the other not having anything to do with such tribe and both are treated as Scheduled Tribes the community which has affinity with another tribe is shown along with it in the same group against a single entry and the other is shown against a different entry. This is illustrated by the inclusion of the koya community having affinity with Gonds in entry No. 18 and the Koya community having no such affinity in Entry no. 33 of Part IX of the Schedule to the Order. If the Parliament intended to treat the appellants community also as a Scheduled Tribe it would have shown mana community under a separate entry. No such entry is found in the Schedule. as the returned candidate did not belong to Mana sub-tribe of Gond Tribe he was not entitled to contest from the reserved constituency and in that view the decision of the High Court setting aside the election was upheld. The Supreme court concluded: ?we are therefore of the view that the mana community included in entry No. 18 can only be that which has affinity with Gonds and any other community which also bears the name mana but does not have any such affinity cannot be deemed to fall within the scope of mana in entry No. 18. from the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Dadaji case (2 supra) it is clear that the Lingadhari Koya (ordinary) specified in Entry 18 of the Schedule to the constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 is a sub-tribe of Koya Tribe. The sub-tribe must have affinity with the main Tribe. Put differently Koya is the genus and the other communities mentioned in that Entry are species being the sub-tribes of Koya Tribe. The appendix to the impugned memo dt. 26-2-91 while highlighting this aspect only describes the characteristic features of the Koya tribe its sub-tribes and in particular the characteristic features of the Lingadhari koyas. The certifying officers are cautioned as to the possibility of Balasanthu community people who are traditional entertainers to masses seeking certificates in the garb of Lingadhari Koyas. The characteristic features of Balasanthu community are also described in the appendix in order to enable the certifying officers to have a proper comprehension of the distinguishing features of lingadhari Koya and Balasanthu communities. The reason for giving such an elaborate guidelines is found in the very appendix itself: ?it has come to notice of the Government that several people from outside the traditional habitat of the Koya Tribe are claiming to be lingadhari Koyas and in some cases as Koya and they are applying for issue of Scheduled Tribe certificates as Lingadhari or Koya. the comprehensive guidelines contained in G. O. Ms. No. 289 dated 28-11-86 for issue of certificates to seekers of Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe and Backward class status required the certifying officers-Gazetted Officers in respect of certain communities and Revenue Divisional Officers in respect of certain other communities -to make: ?necessary enquiries in the concerned village / villages to verify the veracity of the information and genuineness of the claim and documents furnished by the applicant. they must also examine the claim of the applicant ?in the light of the information furnished by the applicant and the documentary evidence produced by him in accordance with the check- list. in the check-list the relevant column reads: ?verified the claim of the applicant in the light of instructions issued by the Government from time to time and satisfied that he belongs to SC/ st/bc. the change brought about in the case of Lingadhari Koya by the present impugned memo as incorporated in para 2 of the check-list is: ?verified the community claim of the applicant in the light of the guidelines issued on Koya or Lingadhari Koya tribe. ( 14 ) ASCERTAINMENT as to whether a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a backward Class is comparatively easier than the verification of claims as to a persons membership of a Scheduled Tribe. The line of demarcation between tribals and non-tribals is not very precise and therefore an enquiry into social religious linguistic and cultural distinctiveness for ascertaining the tribal eharacteristics becomes imperative. The certifying officers must therefore take great care to see that no non-tribal corners the benefits meant only for tribals. Long before the Constitution came into force several benefits were conferred on persons belonging to depressed classes and aboriginal tribes. In s. C. Railway vs. B. Veera Raju a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (M. N. Rao .) was a party while referring to the concept of reservations in favour of Scheduled Tribes observed:aboriginals in our country who unfortunately were left untouched by civilisation were accustomed to primitive conditions of living. They are distinguishable by tribal characteristics and cultural isolation from the main stream of society. The British Government realised the necessity to protect the tribal population from exploitation by the advanced sections of society and also to insulate them from contact with the sophisticated sections and so the areas inhabited by them were placed outside the operation of general law; the protective measures brought by legislation for their safety and welfare are found in Chapter V (Excluded areas and Partially Excluded Areas) of the Government of India Act 1935. These enclaves were formerly called Backward Areas in the government of India Act 1919 and earlier to that they were described as scheduled Districts under the Scheduled Districts Act 14 of 1874. In the 1935 Act first time provision was made for representation of backward tribes in Provincial Legislatures and a list of Backward Tribes was promulgated in 1936 for all the provinces except Punjab and Bengal. In public services also reservation was made in certain categories of posts. The beneficial measures contemplated under Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) and 335 are available to members of Scheduled Tribes in addition to reservation of seats in State Legislatures and Parliament under the provisions of Part XVI of the Constitution. dealing with the aspect that passage of time principles of estoppel or other allied technical doctrines should not preclude the authorities from reopening cases of doubtful claims in regard to the social status the Division Bench observed: ?this is so due to more reasons than one. Not only does the claimant obtain an undeserving benefit but effectively denies an opportunity to a deserving person. The second is that it is not only one person who will be denied that benefit - as we have already mentioned succeeding generations of undeserving will be the beneficiaries of that undue advantage by reason of the alleged fraud. ( 15 ) THE guidelines contained in the appendix to the impugned memorandum must be borne in mind by the certifying officer while issuing the caste certificate. The proforma of the certificate to be issued by the authorised officers contains a crucial sentence that the claim of the applicant: ?has been verified as per the procedure laid down. . . . . the procedure as contained in the guidelines in the context of the large number of bogus claims as to the membership of Lingadhari Koya (ordinary) sub-tribe does not in any manner destroy the constitutional or legal rights of the members of this sub-tribe. On the other hand it safeguards the interests of the genuine members. The contention that it will take unduly long time for the certifying officer to collect proper information in accordance with the guide-lines before issuing the certificate and therefore the time factor destroys the rights of the members of the community is based on an untested assumption. No concrete case alleging that as a result of application of the present guide-lines any genuine member of the sub-tribe has been deprived of his legal rights is brought to our notice. ( 16 ) THE impugned memorandum and the consequential G. O. lay down that officers not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer ?in whose jurisdiction the community certificate seekers claim nativity are empowered to issue community certificates. according to the learned counsel for the petitioners the same makes the entire scheme unworkable; the enquiry in this regard will have to be confined to the native places of the ancestors of the applicants. The apprehensions expressed i in this regard are in our opinion baseless. The word nativity necessarily i implies native place of the candidate but not of his ancestors. This position has been fairly conceded by the learned Advocate-General.( 17 ) THE contours of judicial review of executive action are well settled. One of the contentions strongly urged is that the impugned memorandum is unreasonable. The expressionunreasonable in legal parlance is a comprehensive one. The Court of Appeal in England in Associated Provincial picture Houses Limited vs. Wednesbury Corporation speaking through Lord greene M. R. expounded the concept thus: ?it has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance a person entrusted with a discretion must so to speak direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules he may truly be said and often is said to be acting unreasonably. Similarly there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority. ( 18 ) THE matters required to be considered by the certifying officers as laid down in the guidelines cannot be said to be irrelevant nor do the guidelines allow the authority to take into consideration extraneous matters. The parameters within which the power of judicial review has to be exercised have been considered by the House of Lords very lucidly in Council of Civil Service Unions and others-vs. Minister for the Civil Service. The grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review according to Lord diplock fall under three heads: (1) Illegality; (2) Irrationality; and (3) Procedural impropriety. The learned Law Lord explained the three concepts in his speech:by illegality as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision- maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision- making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided in the event of dispute by those persons the judges by whom the judicial power of the state is exercisable. By irrationality I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as wednesbury unreasonableness (Associated Provincial Picture Houses ltd. vs. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 K. B. 223 ). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the courts exercise of this role resort I think is today no longer needed to Viscount radcliffes ingenious explanation in Edwards vs. Bairstow (1956) A. C. 14 of irrationality as a ground for a courts reversal of a decision by ascribing it to an inferred though unidentifiable mistake of law by the decision-maker.- irrationality by now can stand upon its own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by judicial review. I have described the third head as procedural impropriety rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to judicial review under this head covers also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice. whether a particular course of action was less efficacious or whether a better one could have been evolved is an exercise totally outside the purview of judicial review. The same Law Lord while adverting to this in his speech observed: ?the reasons for the decision-maker taking one course rather than another do not normally involve questions to which if disputed the judicial process is adapted to provide the right answer by which I mean that the kind of evidence that is admissible under judicial procedures and the way in which it has to be adduced tend to exclude from the attention of the court competing policy considerations which if the executive discretion is to be wisely exercised need to be weighed against one another-a balancing exercise which judges by their upbringing and experience are ill-qualified to perform. ( 19 ) IT needs no emphasis that under our legal system governmental policies can be struck down if they are violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution or any statute or any rule having statutory force.( 20 ) WE emphatically reject the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that we should lay down proper guidelines to check arbitrariness likely to surface in future in matters of the present type. That is not the function of this Court. Lord Brightmans observations in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police vs. Evans that: ?judicial review is concerned not with the decision but with the decision-making process. Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed the court will in my view under the guise of preventing the abuse of power be itself guilty of usurping power. were approvingly referred to by the Supreme Court in M / s. Dwarakadas Marfatia and Sons vs. Bombay Port Trust. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court cannot evolve administrative policies on the supposition that they would be just fair and reasonable. ( 21 ) IN W. P. No. 13992 / 91 the-show-cause notice issued by the Collector rangareddy District in No. C5 / 5550 / 91 dated 10-10-91 was questioned. The show-cause notice recites that the petitioners furnished wrong declarations claiming themselves to be members of Lingadhari Koya although they belong to Balasanthu community and obtained caste certificates making false representations. They were called upon to submit explanations within one week from the date of receipt of the notice failing which action would-be taken to cancel the caste certificate issued to them by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The division Bench of this Court in S. C. Railway vs. B. Veera Raju (3 supra) laid down that neither the principle of estoppel nor any technical doctrine of a like nature applies to enquiries relating to caste certificates. The Division Bench also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Vasantkumar Radhakrisan Vora vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay. ( 22 ) THE petitioners are therefore bound to submit their explanations and it is for the concerned authority to take appropriate action after considering The explanation submitted by the petitioners. Within two weeks from today the petitioners shall submit their explanation. ( 23 ) IN the result W. P. No. 9707 / 1990 is dismissed. No costs. W. P. No. 13992/1991 is also dismissed subject to the above direction. The petitioners in W. P. 13992/1991 shall be given time to submit their explanation as directed above. No costs.