THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16677 of 2002 ORDER: All the petitioners hail from the same family. Their social status was certified as to be the one of Konda Kapu which is recognized as scheduled tribe. The District Collector, East Godavari, respondent No.1 herein, initiated proceedings against the petitioners herein in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’). Show cause notices were issued and through orders, dated 18.03.1998, respondent No.1 cancelled the caste certificates issued to the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed appeal under Section 7 (2) of the Act before the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tribal Welfare Department, respondent No.4 herein. Through G.O.Ms.No.81, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 25.07.2002, respondent No.4 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioners contend that the notice issued by respondent No.4 fixing 01.07.2002 as the date of hearing was served upon them on 15.07.2002 and without even ensuring proper service of notice, the appeal was dismissed. They further contend that on several occasions, themselves and their counsel were present, but the appellate authority did not take up the matter for hearing. It is also urged that respondent No.4 did not discuss various important aspects, such as non-reference of the order to the District Level Scrutiny Committee by respondent No.1 and the appeal was dismissed mechanically. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit. He narrated the manner in which the proceedings were initiated and the caste certificates issued to the petitioners were cancelled. According to him, even if the petitioners have received the notice of hearing, after the stipulated date, they could have approached respondent No.4 and instead have filed the writ petition. Heard Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Banu, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The proceedings against the petitioners were initiated more than a decade ago. Their social status was certified to be that of Konda Kapu, but the same was doubted by various authorities, including respondent No.1. The Act prescribes the procedure not only for issuance of caste certificates, but also cancellation thereof. Respondent No.1 passed orders, dated 18.03.1998, cancelling the caste certificates of the petitioners. They availed the statutory remedy of appeal before respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 passed the impugned G.O. almost as an ex parte order. Firstly, it was mentioned that the petitioners did not attend the hearing on 01.07.2002. Secondly, no reference is made to the grounds urged by the petitioners. A perusal of para 2 of the impugned G.O. discloses that the matter was adjourned on several occasions and except on 01.07.2002, the petitioners and their counsel were present on all the dates of hearing. It would have been a different thing altogether had the petitioners been intimated the date of hearing as 01.07.2002 well in advance and they remained absent. The petitioners categorically assert that the notice fixing 01.07.2002 as the date of hearing was received by them only on 15.07.2002. It is not as if the said date was intimated to them on the previous date of hearing. When a notice was issued intimating the date of hearing, respondent No.4 was under obligation to ensure that it is served before the stipulated date. Therefore, a serious flaw has crept in the impugned order. Assuming that the petitioners remained absent despite receiving the notice, respondent No.4 was under obligation to discuss the matter on merits with reference to the grounds urged by the petitioners. Except making a reference to the fact that respondent No.1 cancelled the caste certificates of the petitioners in exercise of the powers under Section 5 of the Act, respondent No.4 did not discuss, much less, record findings in relation to the grounds urged by the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned G.O. is set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.4 for fresh consideration and disposal. Since the matter is pending for the past several years, it is directed that respondent No.4 shall fix a date of hearing, duly verifying their convenience and availability, intimate the date to the petitioners well in advance and proceed with the matter, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:11.03.2010. kdl