THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.13989 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was issued a certificate to the effect that he belongs to Samban caste, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste. On the basis of the same, he secured employment as Typist in the Revenue Department. At present, he is working in the Office of Tahasildar, Vakadu Mandal. On a complaint received against the petitioner to the effect that he does not belong to scheduled caste, the District Collector, Nellore, the 1st respondent, initiated proceedings, against him, under Section 5 of the A.P. (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’). An enquiry was conducted by the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘the Committee’), which, in turn, submitted a report, dated 20.06.2009. Taking the same into account, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 05.07.2009, directing cancellation of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. A direction was also issued for prosecuting the petitioner. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that the copies of the reports, submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Buchireddypalem Mandal, and the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kavali, relied upon by the Committee, were not furnished to him. Another contention of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent did not furnish copy of the report of the Committee so far and that no show cause notice was issued to him before the impugned order was passed. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner did not make any request for furnishing of the copies of report of the MRO and RDO. It is stated that the impugned order was passed, duly taking into account, the findings of the Committee. Heard Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. Section 5 of the Act empowers the District Collector to cancel the caste certificate issued to an individual. However, before the certificate is cancelled, a detailed enquiry is required to be held by the Committee. The provision mandates that the aggrieved party must be given an opportunity before the order of cancellation is passed. In the instant case, an enquiry was no doubt held by the Committee. However, it was obligatory on the part of the Committee to furnish any material relied upon by it, to the petitioner. The impugned order discloses that the report submitted by the MRO, Buchireddypalem and the 2nd respondent were relied upon by the Committee in recording its findings. However, copies thereof were not furnished to the petitioner. The justification pleaded by the respondents is that the petitioner did not make any request in this regard. The said plea cannot be accepted. It is obligatory on the part of the respondents to furnish the copies of all the documents that are relied upon by them The second important ground is that the 1st respondent did not furnish the report copy of the Committee to the petitioner, nor any show cause notice was issued to him. The prescribed procedure mandates that not only the report of the Committee must be furnished to the affected party, but also a show cause notice must be issued by the District Collector, requiring the aggrieved person to explain as to why the caste certificate be not cancelled. However, there was default on both counts on the part of the respondents. Therefore, a serious irregularity is crept into the said proceedings. The impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice, apart from being contrary to the prescribed procedure. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the 1st respondent shall furnish copies of the reports submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Buchireddypalem, dated 27.05.2004 and the 2nd respondent dated 03.11.2007, respectively, and the report of the Committee, dated 20.06.2009. He shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioner enclosing the documents, referred to above and pass fresh orders after considering the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioner. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22.04.2010. GJ