HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24945 of 2009 Dated: 24.11.2009 Between: P.B.S.S.L.N.Murthy Raju … Petitioner And: The Collector and District Magistrate, Vizianagarm and another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24945 of 2009 ORDER: The Collector and District Magistrate, Vizianagarm- the first respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act). It was in relation to the social status of the petitioner who secured employment in judicial service. A show cause notice was issued at the commencement of the proceedings and the matter was entrusted to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘the Committee’). On receiving a report submitted by the Committee, the first respondent issued a notice, dated 29.09.2009, requiring the petitioner to appear before him on 16.10.2009 together with any material in his support. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.23110 of 2009 feeling aggrieved by the notice, dated 29.09.2009. The writ petition was dismissed on 29.10.2009. It was directed that the first respondent shall fix another date for appearance of the petitioner and shall furnish a copy of the report of the Committee to the petitioner. Obviously, not being aware of these developments, the first respondent proceeded to pass an order on 27.10.2009, taking note of the fact that the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice, dated 29.09.2009. The Caste certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled. Hence, this writ petition. Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is untenable in law since the first respondent did not furnish a copy of the report of the Committee to the petitioner. He further submits that the prescribed procedure was not followed. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Government. The petitioner approached this Court soon after receiving the show cause notice, dated 29.09.2009, raising several contentions. The writ petition was dismissed on 29.10.2009 with certain directions. The first respondent was directed to issue a copy of the report of the Committee to the petitioner. About two days earlier to that, i.e., on 27.10.2009, the first respondent proceeded to pass the final order. Admittedly, the petitioner was not furnished a copy of the report of the Committee. Furnishing of such a report to an individual does not need any direction by a Court. In fact, the report constitutes a basis either for the department to take action or for the petitioner to submit his explanation. I n Jadhav Rekoba V. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1], this Court held that any order passed by the District Collector without furnishing the copy of the report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained in law. The ratio laid down by this Court in M.Karunakar V. State of A.P. (2001 (1) ALT 688) and by the Supreme Court in Gulzar Singh V. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1999 ALT (Rev.) 208 (SC)) was applied. Following the same, the writ petition is allowed, on the short ground that the petitioner was not furnished a copy of report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee, and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the first respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioner duly enclosing a copy of the report of the Committee. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Dated:24.11.2009 dr [1] 2009 (2) ALT 10