High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 11 AP CK 0037

Mogalipuvvu Venkateswarlu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati · Decided on 2 November 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kiranmayee Mandava, J
CASE NUMBER
WRIT PETITION NO: 31882 OF 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 577 words

Heard Sri Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents.

2.

The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is against the action of the 3rd respondent in not passing orders on the representation dated 22.10.2026.

3.

It is contended that the petitioner has made a representation requesting the respondent authorities not to issue caste certificates recognizing persons belonging to the Balija community residing in Sannamuru Village, Ankepalli Gram Panchayat, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District, as belonging to the Backward Class Group-D (BC-D) category.

4.

The petitioner in paragraph No.7 of the writ affidavit, elaborates his submissions in the following manner:

“I submit that Mischief of Procuring Fake BC-D Caste Certificates by OC Balijas: In Sannamuru village, a significant population belongs to the Balija community, which is an Open Category (OC) / Forward Caste. With the announcement of reservations for the 2026 Gram Panchayat elections, certain influential individuals belonging to the OC Balija caste in Sannamuru village are illegally attempting to usurp the BC (General) reserved seat.

They have colluded and initiated backdoor efforts before Respondent No. 5 (Tahsildar, Marripudi) to fraudulently obtain Backward Class Group-D Community Certificates under the guise of being "Krishna Balija".”

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that only persons belonging to the Krishna Balija community, especially those falling under the sub-categories of Dasari and Bukka, are recognized under BC-D category. It is further contended that rest of the Balija community residing in the said Sannamuru Village cannot be treated as belonging to the BC-D category, as they belong to OC/forward community.

6.

It is further contended that the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the concerned Tahsildar, requesting them not to issue BC-D community certificates to persons who are not legally entitled to claim such classification. The petitioner apprehends that certain persons belonging to the Balija community in the said Village i.e., Sannamuru (V) may obtain community certificates by falsely claiming as belong to the “Krishna Balija” community. On the basis of the said apprehension, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to entertain such an application.

7.

Considered the submissions

8.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is premature and lacks any cause of action for maintainability of the writ petition leave alone the locus standi of the petitioner.

9.

The apprehension of the petitioner is that some of the persons residing in Sannamuru Village may obtain BC-D community certificates by falsely claiming to belong to the “Krishna Balija” community. On the basis of an apprehension the writ petition cannot be entertained without there being any cause of action, and on the basis of mere illusion that false claims may be made and the same may be made entertained by respondent authorities, this Court is of the view that the same is not maintainable. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

10.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is based on mere apprehensions and is premature. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.