ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the order passed by the first respondent on 16.3.1987 cancelling the community certificate issued to the petitioner on 19.6.1973 and 25.7.1977 by the Tahsildar, Tirupattur. The main case of the petitioner as per the affidavit is that the petitioner belongs to ‘Kurumans’ community in North Arcot District. The earlier certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that he has not produced the documentary proof. But, however, the first respondent has cancelled the certificate on 19.6.1973 and 25.5.1977. The main grievance of the petitioner in this case is that the first respondent has not properly considered the explanation of the petitioner dated 28.4.1986, wherein he has clearly stated that he has produced the original transfer certificate on 16.6.1971 and other documents, which clearly show that he belongs to ‘Kurumans’ community in North Arcot District. According to the petitioner, the above documents have not been referred to by the first respondent. It seems that the petitioner was not given the Revenue Divisional Officer’s report, so as to file his objections. 2. The respondents have filed a counter. It has been stated in para.3 of the counter that the ‘Kurumans’ community in North Arcot District and the ‘Kurumba’ people styled themselves as ‘Kuruman’ with a view to get job avenues depriving the bona fide candidates. The Government in G.O.M.S.No.388 (SWD), dated 6.5.1977 treated ‘Kurumba’ residing in North Arcot District as ‘Kurumans’ and certificate issued by the Tahsildar stands cancelled automatically in view of the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.748, SWD, dated 27.10.1977. It has been further stated in the counter that the certificate obtained by the petitioner by making false representation on 25.5.1977 also stands cancelled in view of the cancellation of the Government order conferring ‘Kurumba’ as ‘Kuruman’ (ST) status. It has also been further stated that the District Collector has issued directions to the effect that the community certificate already issued if found to be false, action should be taken to cancel the certificate as per the instructions contained in Government letter No.9850/ADW/ II/85-3, dated 22.5.1985 and accordingly, action was initiated to cancel the certificate. A show cause notice dated 20.4.1986 has been issued to show cause, as to why the certificate should not be cancelled. But there is no mentioning of conducting any enquiry by the concerned officials to verify the genuineness of the certificate. A show cause notice dated 20.4.1986 has been issued to show cause, as to why the certificate should not be cancelled. But there is no mentioning of conducting any enquiry by the concerned officials to verify the genuineness of the certificate. The respondents have stated that the petitioner himself has made a representation on 28.4.1986 and after considering his representation and after conducting the local enquiries, the RDO has cancelled the certificate issued on 16.3.1987. But however, there is no mention of conducting any enquiry as required with reference to the documents submitted by the petitioner, nor the report was made available to the petitioner so as to file his objections. 3. In the judgment reported in D.Illamaran v. Government of India, 1996 Writ L.R. 482, a Division Bench of this Court has held that if the report of the R.D.O., is not furnished to the aggrieved persons, so as to file their objections, it is violative of principles of natural justice. It is very clear from the counter itself that the petitioner was not furnished with the copy of the report of the R.D.O., so as to file his objections. More so, no proper enquiry was conducted. It has been merely stated in the counter that they have conducted an enquiry, but no documents are furnished showing the conduct of the enquiry. In Gulzar Singh v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, (1999)3 S.C.C. 107 , the Apex Court has held thus: "It is clear from the facts on record that prior to the cancellation of the scheduled caste certificate by the impugned order dated 3.6.1997, no show cause notice was issued to the appellant. It cannot be denied that with the issuance of the scheduled caste certificate, certain rights accrued to the appellant. If this certificate was to be cancelled on the basis of some enquiry which had been conducted by the department, it was incumbent on the department, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, to issue a show cause notice to the appellant requiring him to explain as to why the scheduled caste certificate which had been issued should not be cancelled. If there were statements of other persons which were recorded, as seem to have been done in the present case, on the basis of which the department came to the conclusion that the appellant was not a Majhbi Sikh by caste but was a Christian, then fairness would require that the said statements should be put to the appellant before a final decision is taken." 4. In this case also even though some enquiries have been conducted by the department, the department has failed to issue show cause notice and produce the statements on which the departmental has come to the conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to the caste of "Kurumans". The said statements have not been put to the petitioner by the respondents herein before passing final orders. It has to be held that there is violation of principle of natural justice and hence the impugned order has to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed on 16.3.1987 is quashed and it is open to the respondents to take action in accordance with law. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.14533 of 1992 and 9523 of 1997 are closed. No costs.