Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/44/2014

Gundraju Keerthana, D/o. G.Sukumar, minor, Represented by her father G. Sukumar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Tahasildaar, Tirupati Urban Mandal, - Opp.Party(s)

G. Ramaiah Pillai

10 Mar 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:01.09.2014

Order Date: 10.03.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

TUESDAY THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

C.C.No.44/2014

 

Between

 

1.         Gundraju Keerthana,

            D/o. G.Sukumar,

            Hindu, aged about 15 years,

            Minor, rep. by her father G.Sukumar.

 

2.         G.Sukumark,

            S/o. G.Nagaraju,

            Journalist of Visalandhra Daily Newspaper.

 

Both the complainant Nos.1 and 2 are presently residing at:

 

D.No.21-10-334/B, Kranthi Nagar,

Jeevakona,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                  … Complainant Nos. 1 & 2

 

And

 

1.         The Tahasildar,

            Tirupati Urban Mandal,

            AIR By-pass Road,

            Near RASS Building,

            Tirupati – 517 501.

 

2.         The Registrar,

            Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge & Technologies,

            Vindhya, C-4, IIIT-H Campus,

            Gachibowli,

            Hyderabad – 500 032.                                             …  Opposite parties 1 & 2

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 24.02.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant, and P.Santhisree, counsel for the opposite party No.2, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

This complaint is filed under Sections-12 and 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainants against the opposite parties 1 and 2 for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages for the loss of studies of complainant No.1 in the University due to non-issuance of Caste Certificate, 2) to direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony to complainant No.2 and his family members for not issuing B.C. certificate even till today and 3) to direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2.  The brief averments in the complaint are:- That complainant No.1 is the minor daughter of complainant No.2. She is a merit student right from 2^nd class to 10^th class. She is Agnikula Kshatriya by caste. She was allowed free education and secured grade points average (GPA) 10/10 in S.S.C. public examination held in March 2014. Opposite party No.2 gave notification on 19.05.2014 for admission in six year integrated B.Tech programme for the candidates, who passed S.S.C. and its equivalent examination and the admission will be based on GPA with an objective to provide weight-age to the socio economically challenged students.

3.  The 1^st complainant applied on 21.05.2014. Those who claim B.C. Community, the certificate issued by the competent authority through ‘MEE-SEVA’ only will be accepted. As per G.O.Ms.No.1793 Education Department dt:23.09.1970 Agnikula Kshatriya is a socially and economically backward classes in Andhra Pradesh. 2^nd complainant, who is having Agnikula Kshtriya caste certificate issued by Revenue Department during the year 1986 and 1988, applied for caste certificate through MEE-SEVA on 04.06.2014 at Tirupati. The last date for receipt of applications for the said six year integrated B.Tech programme invited by opposite party No.2 is 16.06.2014. That the complainant paid Rs.35/- in MEE-SEVA and caste certificate is to be delivered within 30 days. The 2^nd complainant got income and nativity certificates through MEE-SEVA on payment of Rs.35/- per each certificate. The complainant enclosed previous caste certificates along with Transfer Certificate of 1^st complainant on 12.06.2014 to the opposite party No.2 by courier. On 17.06.2014 the 2^nd complainant received a message that the application of 1^st complainant was placed under invalid list for want of original caste certificate through MEE-SEVA and required him to produce the same by 21.06.2014. The 2^nd complainant approached the Registrar of opposite party No.2 at Hyderabad on 20.06.2014 and submitted an undertaking that he will produce caste certificate of his daughter or else consider her admission under open category. On his return to Tirupati, he approached opposite party No.1 and requested to expedite the issue of caste certificate of his daughter otherwise his daughter will not get admission in the college of opposite party No.2. Then opposite party No.1 advised 2^nd complainant to go to Vijayapuram mandal to get caste certificate on 02.07.2014. The 2^nd complainant met the District Collector and narrated the problem. Inspite of the endorsement of the Joint Collector on the representation of 2^nd complainant and, repeated approaches by 2^nd complainant, caste certificate was not issued. Opposite party No.2 has considered the application of complainant No.1 and though waited till 27.07.2014 for receiving the caste certificate of complainant No.1, opposite party No.1 failed to issue caste certificate. Because of the latches on the part of opposite party No.1, complainant No.1 could not get admission in the college of opposite party No.2. Hence the compliant.

4.  Opposite party No.1 (party-in-person) filed his written version contending that he has followed the procedure and he has made enquiries as contemplated under Section-6 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Act 1993 and Rule-5(a), 5(b) and 6 of its Rules 1997 and also “Anantharaman Commission Report” communicated by the Commissioner of Backward Classes Welfare, A.P. Hyderabad, vide Rc.No.E1/5741/2002 dt:29.08.2002, during his enquiry, it reveals that the complainants 1 and 2 are originally hails from Vijayanagaram District to Yerpedu mandal of Chittoor District and then moved to Mangalam village of Tirupati urban mandal about 15 years back and that the complainants are non-natives of Tirupati urban mandal and his blood relatives were also not residing in Tirupati urban limits. Hence their anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies could not be enquired.

5.  Complainants also made representation to the District Collector and RDO Chittoor, which was endorsed to the RDO, Tirupati, by the District Collector. The RDO, Tirupati vide Roc No.A/2092/2014 dt:05.07.2014 has forwarded the representation and to the said endorsement opposite party No.1 submitted his report to RDO in Roc.No.A01448/2014 dt:25.07.2014 and inturn RDO submitted a report to the District Collector vide D.Dis.A/292/2014 dt:11.08.2014 stating that the complainants are non-natives to Tirupati urban mandal. Opposite party No.1 further stated that different kinds of people from all over the country are migrating to Tirupati urban mandal limits because Tirupati happens to be a temple town. Therefore, opposite party No.1 has taken utmost care in issuing Community Certificate. In view of the circumstances referred to above, opposite party No.1 rejected to issue Agnikula kshatriya Caste Certificate to complainant No.1, only in accordance with the instructions containing in A.P.SC, ST and Backward Classes Regulations of Issuance of Community Certificate Act 1993 and its Rules 1997 but not intentionally and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint against opposite party No.1.

6.  Opposite party No.2 (The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, Hyderabad) filed his written version contending that Para.1 to 5 of complaint do not relates to opposite party No.2 and denying the allegations in Para.6 to 11, 15 and 17 of the complaint and further contended that opposite party No.2 issued notification for admission into six year integrated B.Tech programme for the academic year 2014-15 on 19.05.2014 inviting online applications from the candidates, who passed 10^th class in first attempt in the year 2014. The 1^st complainant’s application bearing No.RGU2014WB0000083 has submitted online application and sent online application copy. During scrutiny it is found that 1^st complainant did not enclose her study certificates for 4^th and 5^th classes and their community certificate. The same was updated by opposite party No.2 and sent SMS to 1^st complainant’s mobile that her application was placed under invalid category and requested the 1^st complainant to submit the above documents by 21.06.2014. On 19.06.2014 complainants have represented that they have applied for caste certificate through MEE-SEVA, it will take long time to get the caste certificate and she will submit whenever she received it, if not her application may be considered under open category. Since 1^st complainant and other applicants those who failed to submit caste certificates were treated under open category and 1^st complainant was informed to attend the counseling on 27.07.2014 at RGUKT RK Valley Campus. Cutoff rank for open category is 10.1 and 1^st complainant got only 10 points. Thus 1^st complainant is not qualified and she also failed to submit caste certificate, as such she could not get admission in the University of opposite party No.2 and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint against opposite party No.2 with exemplary costs.

7.  Complainants and opposite party No.2 have filed their respective chief affidavits and written arguments and got marked Exs.A1 to A20 for the complainants and reported no documents for opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 did not file  chief affidavit or written arguments, as such he was set exparte.

8.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether Revenue Department or Welfare Departments will come under

        the purview of provisions of C.P.Act 1986?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

(ii).  Whether complaint is maintainable against opposite party No.2

         (University) ?

(iii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

(iv).  To what relief?

9.  Point No.(i):-  To answer this point burden lies on the complainants to prove that opposite party No.1 is also a service provider under the provisions of C.P.Act. Now it is pertinent to refer Section-2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act 1986.

 

Section-2 (1) (o) – “Service”

means service of any description which is made available to potential (users and includes but not limited to, the provision of) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both (housing construction) entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service

 

Section-2(1)(o) mentioned certain departments against whom the complaints are to be maintained before the Consumer Forum. Revenue Department, so far as issuance or non-issuance of caste certificate or the Social Welfare Department for the same purpose were not included in Section-2(1)(a) of the Act.

10.  If the 1^st opposite party failed to furnish the caste certificate, the complainants ought to have approach the concerned superior authorities in the Government or to approach appropriate Forum for Redressal. Opposite party No.1, Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban mandal, Tirupati, has referred to G.O.Ms.No.1793, Education Department dt:23.09.1970, which communicated the list of socially and economically backward classes in A.P. Agnikula Kshtriya caste has been included in Group-A, subsequently it was deleted from Group-A as per G.O.Ms.No.15, BCW(C2) Dept. dt:19.02.2009 and the same was included under Group-D at S.No.19 as per interim orders dt:13.05.2009 issued by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad in W.P.No.9826/2009. The castes which were under Group-A are - Agnikula Kshtriya, Palli Vadabalija, Bestha, Jalari and some other communities, they were deleted from Group-A and included in Group-D according to said G.O.Ms.No.15 referred to above. As per subsequent amendment dt:09.03.2009 again the Agniokula kshtriya caste was  shown in Group-A, list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. Therefore, whether the complainants belong to Agnikulakshtriya or not is not the question. In order to ascertain whether they were BC-A group or BC-B, BC-C, BC-D is to be decided by the Revenue Department, who is competent authority to issue Community Certificates. According to the written version of opposite party No.1, he has made enquiries and found that complainants 1 and 2 were hails from Vijayanagaram District to Yerpedu mandal under migration about 15 years ago and according to his report the blood relatives of complainants were also not residing in Tirupati urban mandal, as such he could not issue caste certificate since he has no opportunity to examine their anthropological and ethnological details to ascertain their community. Opposite party No.1 has referred G.O.Ms.No.1793 issued by Education Department dt:23.09.1970. The provisions of A.P. SC, ST and Backward Classes Regulations of issuance of Community Certificate Act 1993 (Act No.16 of 1993), Rule-5(a), 5(b) of A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes) issuance of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules 1997, according to which he made enquiries and found that the complainants are non-natives of Tirupati urban mandal. Therefore, he did not issue the Community Certificate in favour of the complainant No.1. If the complainants are aggrieved by the orders of the opposite party No.1 Tahsildar, they have to approach superior authorities of Revenue Department or competent authority, who can direct the Tahsildar to issue such certificates or else, they have to approach appropriate Forum like Civil Courts for their Redressal.

11.  The Revenue Department or Education Department or Social Welfare Department were not included in the “service” as contemplated under Section-2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act 1986. Therefore, those departments will not come under the purview of C.P.Act 1986, so far as issuance or non-issuance of Caste Certificates / Community Certificates. Accordingly this point is answered.

12.  Point No.(ii):-  to answer this point, the complainants are under obligation to prove that the Consumer Forums can entertain such applications against the Universities or Educational Institutions. Complainants 1 and 2 though claimed no reliefs against opposite party No.2, since opposite part No.2 happens to be Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, Hyderabad, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. We are relying on the decision reported in 2010 (11) SCC 159 – Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjit Kaur, wherein their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that education is not a commodity, educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. Therefore in the matter of admissions, fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service, such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under C.P.Act 1986. The complainants shall have opportunity to seek their grievances before the appropriate Forum or Civil Court as per Law. In another decision reported in (2009) 8 SCC 483 – Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha wherein their Lordships held that statutory board does not provide any service, in the sense the term is used in the Act the examinee is not a consumer. It was held that Board is not a service provider.

13.  According to the written version, chief affidavit and written argument filed on behalf of opposite party No.2, 1^st complainant was not qualified in the counseling and also not produced Community Certificate, as such she was not admitted. In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the complaint against opposite party No.2 is not maintainable before this Forum. Accordingly this point is answered.  

14.  Point No.(iii):-  to answer this point, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and opposite party No.1, who is an official of Revenue Department, who is competent to issue or non-issue of Community / Caste Certificate, when Appellate Authorities are there against opposite party No.1, without exhausting the remedies available with the Government, complainants are not expected to approach the Consumer Forum for their Redressal. The written version filed by opposite party No.1 shows that opposite party No.1 has made thorough enquiries and found that complainants 1 and  2 are non-natives of Tirupati urban mandal. Therefore, he could not issue Caste Certificate infavour of complainant No.1 as required by the complainants because he has no opportunity to examine the relatives  / blood relatives of complainants to ascertain their community before issuing the Caste Certificate, as such we find no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1, that apart complainants are not seeking relief of a direction to opposite party No.1 or the concerned authorities to issue Caste Certificate. Under those circumstances, the complaint before this Forum is not maintainable against the Revenue Department or the Social Welfare Department in respect of issuance or non-issuance of the Caste Certificate and the complainants are at liberty to move to the appropriate Forum or the Civil Court for their redressal and they are not entitled to the reliefs sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.

15.  Point No.(iv):-  In view of our holding on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainants failed to prove that the complaint is maintainable before this Forum against opposite parties 1 and 2, that the complainants are consumers within the meaning of Section-2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1

Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to the reliefs sought for. The complaint, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.          

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 10^th day of March, 2015.   

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                 

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

 

PW-1:  G.Keerthana D/o. G.Sukumar  (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	Copy of list as per G.O.Ms.No.1793, Education Department socially and educationally backward classed in Andhra Pradesh showing Agnikula Kshatriya in Sl.No1 of Group-A. Dt: 23.09.1970.
2.	Photo copy of Caste Certificate of G. Sukumar as Agnikula Kshatriya issued by the M.R.O., Yerpedu. Dt: 13-08-1986.
3.	Photo copy of Form of Caste Certificate of G.Sukumar as Agnikula Kshatriya issued by M.R.O., Yerpedu. Dt: 29.08.1988.
4.	Photo copy of Caste Certificate as Agnikula Kshatriya issued in favour of G.Chandrasekhar, son of G.Chengal Raju of Irala Mandal by M.R.O., Irala. Dt: 19.09.1991.
5.	Photo copy of Form of Caste Certificate of Agnikula Kshatriya in favour of G.Paramanand, son if G.Nagaraju by M.R.O. of Yerpedu Mandal. Dt: 15.06.1992.
6.	Photo copy of Online notification issued by Opposite Party No.2. for admission in 2014 into 6 year integrated B.Tech programme. Dt: 19.05.2014.
7.	Submission of application online to Opposite Party No.2 by complainant No.1. Dt: 21.05.2014.
8.	Photo copy of Bank Draft for Rs.150/- towards application fee. Dt: 21.05.2014.
9.	Enclosing photo copies of education certificates of complainant No.1 by courier service consisting group of certificates i.e., residence certificate , hall ticket, S.S.C. pass certificate , T.C, Study certificate , income certificate, Aadhaar card, household card. Dt: 12.6.2014
10.	Photo copy of letter to Opposite Party No.2 with a request to permit him to produce the caste certificate at the time of interview or to consider her admission under open category. Dt: 19.06.2014.
11.	Photo copy of Journey ticket from Tirupati to Hyderabad and back with fare at Rs.325/- each to and fro. Dt: 20.06.2014.
12.	Photo copy of Endorsement, on the representation by complainant No.2, Mee Seva Slip Dt:04.06.2014.
13.	Copy of R.D.O. letter to the Tahasildar to make enquiry and to the necessary action. Dt: 05.07.2014.
14.	Photo copy of affidavit of complainant of complainant No.2 duly certified by notary. Dt: 15.07.2014.
15.	Photo copy of letter from Opposite Party No.2 Dt: 07.07.2014 informing to attend for waiting list for counseling at Idupulapaya.
16.	Study Certificate (Original)issued by the Head Mistress of Seven Hills High School, Tirupati regarding free education to complainant no.1 from 2nd class to 10th class due to her merit.
17.	Study Certificate (Original) issued by Sri Chaitanya Girls Junior College of Intermediate from 2014 – 2015. Dt: 25.08.2014.
18.	Extract of messages received from MEE-SEVA & Opposite Party No.2 by the complainant No.2. Dt: 04.06.14 to 09.07.2014.
19.	MEE-SEVA Receipts (3).
20.	News paper Cuttings. Dt: 15.05.2014.

 

 

                                                                                                                                   Sd/-                

                                                                                                                President

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

             Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainants.

                        2. The opposite parties.