Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Dasaraj, the petitioner herein, prays for the issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai, the second respondent herein, in his proceedings No. 1539/90, dated 2-11-90 and to quash the same. 2. The facts that are relevant for the disposal of this Writ Petition are stated as follows :- The petitioner claiming himself to be belonged to Malaikuravar community, classified as Scheduled Tribe, applied for the community certificate to the Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai, the third respondent herein. On production of materials, the third respondent herein, after satisfying himself with the genuineness of his claim, issued a community certificate on 23-8-85 stating that the petitioner belongs to Malaikuravar community, classified as Scheduled Tribe. In pursuance of the community certificate, the petitioner applied for employment in I.C.F., Madras and he was selected and permitted to be acting as an Apprentice in the I.C.F. On reference from the General Manager, I.C.F., Madras by letter dated 16-9-88, the first respondent, the District Collector by the letter dated 31-5-90 directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamali, the second respondent herein, to conduct an enquiry with reference to the genuineness of the community certificate issued to the petitioner on 23-8-85. Accordingly, the petitioner received a notice dated 24-7-90 sent by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the community certificate dated 23-8-85 should not be cancelled on the ground that the certificate has been obtained on false information. The said notice further directed the petitioner to appear before the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer with all the documents to establish his case. On receipt of this notice on 7-8-90, the petitioner on 14-8-90 sent a reply along with the documents stating that the community certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, the third respondent, on the basis of the genuine materials. On 2-11-90, the second respondent herein, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai, on considering the reply and other materials, cancelled the community certificate. This impugned order is under challenge in this Writ Petition before this Court. 3. Mr. On 2-11-90, the second respondent herein, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai, on considering the reply and other materials, cancelled the community certificate. This impugned order is under challenge in this Writ Petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Lakshminarayanan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would attack the impugned order contending that the said order of cancellation of petitioner's community certificate, already issued in his favour is illegal, without jurisdiction, vitiated, violative of the principles of natural justice and totally unjustified. The main plank of the attack by the counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, is not competent to cancel the community certificate validly issued by the Tahsildar and the said cancellation had been ordered by the Revenue Divisional Officer without following the principles of natural justice. He would cite several authorities, in order to substantiate his contention. The said decisions are as follows :- (1) N. V. Subramanian v. The Addl. Collector, Salem District, 1997 Writ LR 508 ; (2) Illamaran D. v. Govt. of India, 1996 Writ LR 482; (3) S. Duraisamy Reddy v. Collector of Salem District, 1998 Writ LR 606; and (4) Sekar R. K. v. District Collector, Chennagai M.G.R. District, 1996 Writ LR 484. 4. The Government Advocate is heard. Neither the counter is filed, though the writ petition is pending for about 8 years nor the learned Government Advocate is able to give any valid reason to sustain the impugned order. 5. The decisions referred to above have already given sufficient guidelines on the basis of various G.Os. issued by the Government, as to the procedure to be followed in the matter of cancellation of community certificate. This case is a text book example to show that the respondents 1 and 2 have followed neither the G.Os. issued by the Government nor the guidelines given by this Court relating to the observance of principles of natural justice. 6. In the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1996 Writ LR 482 and 1996 Writ LR 484 (supra) and another Division Bench's decision in W.A. No. 241 of 1996, it is clearly held that before the competent authority coming to the conclusion that the community certificate already issued is liable to be cancelled, he has necessarily to give an opportunity to the person concerned to file his objection and adduce evidence. 7. 7. It is also clearly held, whenever the question arises as to whether a person belongs to a community recognised as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, a decision has to be taken only by the Collector of the District after holding due enquiry. In such cases, he may himself hold the enquiry or direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to hold an enquiry and submit a report. When the Revenue Divisional Officer conducts the enquiry, he shall send a report to the Collector for passing final order. The Collector before passing the final order has necessarily to give the concerned person opportunity, by furnishing him a copy of the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and allow him to file his objection and produce his materials, if any, and then to decide the matter after hearing the aggrieved person. In the event of his coming to the conclusion that there are no materials to hold that the person belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the Collector shall cancel the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar to the said person and intimate the same to the concerned Department. 8. In the instant case, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed an order cancelling the community certificate by merely mentioning that he was not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner and that no documents were made available to the Revenue Divisional Officer with reference to the community certificate issued to the relative of the petitioner. 9. Admittedly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent herein is not a competent authority to pass such an order as held by this Court. The Revenue Divisional Officer, as directed by the Collector, may conduct a preliminary discreet enquiry by examining the witnesses and the person concerned and send a report recommending for action to the Collector. Thereafter, the Collector shall serve a copy of the report upon the person concerned and shall afford further opportunity to him to demonstrate that the preliminary report sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer recommending for the cancellation of the community certificate was not based on the truth or otherwise. Thereafter, the Collector shall serve a copy of the report upon the person concerned and shall afford further opportunity to him to demonstrate that the preliminary report sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer recommending for the cancellation of the community certificate was not based on the truth or otherwise. Only when further opportunity is given by the Collector before passing of the final order, the affected person would be able to place the materials available before the Collector, in order to show that the materials on the basis of which the preliminary report was sent, could not be relied upon. 10. As stated earlier, admittedly, there was no opportunity given to the petitioner to put forth his case effectively by adducing evidence before the Collector to show that the community certificate was validly issued by the Tahsildar. Moreover, the Revenue Divisional Officer instead of sending the preliminary enquiry report, passed final order cancelling the community certificate, to the utter disobedience of the G.Os. and mandatory procedure as laid down by this Court time and again. 11. There is no dispute about the fact that the competent authority to cancel the community certificate is the District Collector. The Government has prescribed the authority who is competent to cancel the community certificate. After considering the relevant G.O.Ms. No. 1193 Social Welfare Department, dated 23-3-1982, this Court in Sakthi Devi v. The Collector of Salem, (1985) 98 LW 105 , held that the District Collector alone is the competent authority to pass orders as to the cancellation of the community certificate. 12. In view of the above factual and legal situation, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I allow this writ petition by quashing the impugned order dated 2-11-1990 passed by the second respondent the R.D.O. and remit back the matter to the first respondent, the Collector with a direction to decide the matter after affording full opportunity to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms :- (i) The order of the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai, is quashed; (ii) The first respondent-Collector is directed to call for the report from the second respondent on the basis of the enquiry already conducted by him on notice being issued to the petitioner dated 7-8-1990 and on the basis of the materials collected during the said enquiry and furnish the copy of the report along with the copies of the documents proposed to be relied upon by the Collector to the petitioner and summon him for giving opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence to establish that the conclusion arrived at by the Revenue Divisional Officer was not correct and to substantiate his claim that he belongs to the Schedule Tribe. The Collector after recording that evidence adduced by the petitioner shall hear the petitioner and thereafter, the Collector shall decide the matter; (iii) In the event of holding that the petitioner does not belong to Malaikuravar community, the Collector shall cancel the community certificate issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, the third respondent and intimate the same to the petitioner as well as the Department in which the petitioner is working; (iv) The District Collector, the first respondent shall comply with this order within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There is no order as to costs. In view of this order, W.M.P. No. 27819 of 1990 stands closed. Petition allowed.