THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13265 OF 2003 ORDER: The petitioner filed instant writ petition challenging the orders of the Government – first respondent herein; in G.O.Ms.No.43, Social Welfare (CV2) Department, dated 15.05.2000, whereby and whereunder the Government while dismissing review petition filed by petitioner confirmed the orders of District Collector, Nizamabad – second respondent herein; in his proceedings, dated 19.08.1993. Be it noted, by the said proceedings District Collector cancelled the caste/community certificate issued to petitioner showing him as belonged to scheduled tribe ‘Mannervarlu’. The petitioner alleges that he belongs to ‘Mannervarlu’ caste, which is a notified scheduled tribe as per the Presidential Order as well as annexure 1 to Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (the Act, for brevity). On the basis of said certificate, he was appointed as Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (RTC) in July, 1980. Chandranna Dalam Radical Girijana Sangam gave a complaint to District Collector alleging that petitioner obtained false caste certificate. On that basis, Joint Collector, Nizamabad – third respondent herein; by proceedings, dated 28.12.1992 cancelled caste certificate. The petitioner filed W.P.No.2979 of 1993 challenging the same. This Court, by order, dated 15.03.1993 set aside the order of third respondent and remitted the matter to competent authority to give reasonable opportunity and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, petitioner submitted an explanation on 28.03.1993. Second respondent gave personal hearing and after considering the record, passed orders on 19.08.1993 cancelling the community certificate of petitioner bearing No.A4/1410/80, dated 14.03.1980, which was issued by Tahsildar, Yellareddy, Nizamabad District. The petitioner then preferred review petition before the Government unsuccessfully. A counter affidavit is filed by second respondent on behalf of respondents opposing the writ petition. It is, however, not necessary to refer to same as it contains the chronology of events ultimately resulting in passing of the orders in District Collectorate by the Government. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though this Court directed to give opportunity to petitioner, third respondent closed the enquiry without giving an opportunity after receiving the representation submitted by petitioner. Secondly, he submits that reliance was placed on the enquiry conducted by Mandal Revenue Officer in 1990 behind the back of petitioner, and therefore, impugned orders based on irrelevant material is unsustainable. Lastly, he submits that the Government has not applied mind and non-speaking order passed by them fails scrutiny of the Court. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare submits that Government considered entire record as well as the remarks submitted by District Collector and passed orders, and therefore, the same cannot be treated as one without reasons or without application of mind. As noticed supra, after this Court disposed of W.P.No.2979 of 1993, dated 15.03.1993, petitioner submitted explanation on 28.03.1993. He raised two grounds, namely, that Mandal Revenue Officer held enquiry in the village when he was not present, and therefore, the same cannot be used against the petitioner. Secondly, ‘Mannervarlu’ is a scheduled tribe and the same cannot be considered, and he belongs to such caste. District Collector relying on report of Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad; Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan and Special Inspector General of Police (Crimes), Andhra Pradesh, came to the conclusion that petitioner does not belong to ‘Mannervarlu’ caste. When petitioner filed review petition before the Government, he raised these grounds, which would go to the root of the matter. The Government in their impugned order did not even refer to these grounds nor discussed reasons for rejecting the grounds. After referring to history of the case and mentioning the factum of receiving remarks from the District Collector, the Government rejected the review petition. Virtually, no reasons are given for arriving at the conclusion that the review petition is dismissed. It is now axiomatic that a quasi-judicial authority, whose decisions/orders are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is bound to give reasons for its conclusions. If reasons are not given, the same would also violate principles of natural justice, as held by Supreme Court in number of cases (see S.N.Mukherjee v Union of India[1]). In that view of the matter, impugned order suffers from not only absence of reasons, non-application of mind but also violative of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded to Government for fresh disposal giving reasons. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned Government Order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Government directing to dispose of the review petition filed by petitioner against the orders of District Collector, dated 19.08.1993 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after giving opportunity to petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) .11.2008. pln [1] (1990) 4 SCC 594 : AIR 1990 SC 1984