Judgment :- The writ petition is for the issue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam in Na. Ka. No. 14377/94-A5 dated 10-6-1995 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to issue a community certificate. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he belonged to Kattunayakan Community which is a Schedule Tribe Community. He obtained a community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Thiruvidaimarudhur on 22-6-1969. Based on the said certificate, the petitioner obtained a seat in S.V.R. College, Surat, in engineering course. With a view to obtain a fresh certificate, he applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, on 20-9-1993. The petitioner has sent the xerox copies of all the relevant documents including the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, to the Revenue Divisional Officer. However the second respondent Revenue Divisional Officer by memo dated 22-9-1993 directed the petitioner to attend for an enquiry on 27-9-1993. The said memo was received by the mother of the petitioner. On 27-9-1993, the petitioner's mother appeared for the enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer. She has also submitted xerox copies of all the relevant documents. The petitioner's mother wanted to give oral evidence before the Revenue Divisional Officer. She was present with witness to support their claim. The Section Clerk informed the petitioner's mother that it was not necessary to examine the witnesses as she has already produced the documents. According to the petitioner, no enquiry was conducted on 27-9-1993. On 18-8-1994, again the memo was sent from the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, directing the petitioner to appear for the enquiry on 29-8-1994. The petitioner's mother went again on 29-8-1994 for enquiry along with the aunt of the petitioner namely Mogum. When the said Mogum wanted to give a statement, the P.A. to the Revenue Divisional Officer, declined to record her statement. On 29-8-1994 also no enquiry was conducted in the presence of the petitioner's mother and the paternal aunt of the petitioner. Another memo was issued to the petitioner and it was received by the petitioner's mother whereby the petitioner was instructed to produce the original community certificate. Again the petitioner's mother went to the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer. On 29-8-1994 also no enquiry was conducted in the presence of the petitioner's mother and the paternal aunt of the petitioner. Another memo was issued to the petitioner and it was received by the petitioner's mother whereby the petitioner was instructed to produce the original community certificate. Again the petitioner's mother went to the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer. On 1-7-1995 when the petitioner's father went to the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer for getting a community certificate for the petitioner's sister, only then he was informed that the community certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer and no such community certificate could be issued to the petitioner's sister. When the petitioner himself has approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, he could get the order only through an Advocate, cancelling the community certificate of the petitioner. The said order was furnished to the petitioner on 3-8-1995. Aggrieved by the action of the second respondent in cancelling the community certificate of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not the competent authority to cancel the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar to the petiitioner on 22-6-1989. The power to cancel the community certificate, is vested with the District Collector by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 781 Revenue dated 2-5-1988. Learned counsel has further submitted that by the said G.O. jurisdiction has been conferred with the District Collector and the duty of the Revenue Divisional Officer is to conduct the enquiry and submit a report to the District Collector. Learned counsel has also submitted that the impugned order cancelling the communty certificate issued to the petitioner, has been passed on 10-6-1995 on which date, the jurisdiction vests with the District Collector. Learned counsel has further submitted that even assuming that the Revenue Divisional Officer has power to conduct the enquiry, he has not conducted the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and has not submitted the report to the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer himself has passed the final orders cancelling the community certificate of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not taken into consideration the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner to support his claim that he belonged to Kattu Nayakan community. Learned counsel submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not taken into consideration the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner to support his claim that he belonged to Kattu Nayakan community. He has also submitted that no enquiry has been conducted on the dates fixed for enquiry, to arrive at a conclusion whether the petitioner belonged to Kattu Nayakan community or not. In the circumstances learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the second respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is violating of principles of natural justice as the petitioner had no opportunity whatsoever to file the objections to the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the impugned order passed without hearing the petitioner, is liable to be set aside. In support of contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. 1. R. Kandasamy v. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust. 2. D. Illamaran v. Government of India, 1996 Writ LR 482. 3. R. K. Sekar v. The District Collector, Chengai MGR District, Kancheepuram, 1996 Writ LR 484. 4. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit. It has been admitted in the counter-affidavit that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, by proceedings in Rc. No. 14317/94 M. 5/Dt. 10-6-1995 has passed the order cancelling the community certificate issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Thiruvidaimarudur, since the individual did not produce sufficient documents. 5. To the said averment made in the counter-affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the final order, documents relied on by the petitioner in support of his claim, were available with the second respondent Revenue Divisional Officer and the said averment made in one counter is without any basis. 6. The fact remains that as on the date of cancelling the community certificate of the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer was not the appropriate authority to cancel the community certificate as he had no jurisdiction whatsoever in pursuance of G.O. Ms. No. 781 Revenue dated 2-5-1988. As per the said Government Order, the District Collector alone has got the authority to confirm or cancel the community certificate. No. 781 Revenue dated 2-5-1988. As per the said Government Order, the District Collector alone has got the authority to confirm or cancel the community certificate. In this case, it is clear that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not submitted any report to the concerned District Collector and passed the final orders on his own, on 10-6-1995, on which he had no jurisdiction to cancel the community certificate of the petitioner. The duty of the Revenue Divisional Officer is to submit the report to the District Collector for passing appropriate orders. 7. In R. Kandasamy's case cited supra, the Apex Court has held as follows : "In our opinion the community certificate issued to a Scheduled Tribe candidate by the Tahsildar prior to 11-11-1989 is a good and valid community certificate for all purposes so long as such a certificate is not cancelled. The authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and insist upon a fresh Community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer." 8. In D. Illamaran's case, 1996 Writ LR 482 and R. K. Sekar's case, 1996 Writ LR 484, this Court has held that a copy of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer be furnished to the concerned person and give him opportunity to file objections and adduce evidence and failure to do so amounts to irregularity and the order passed cancelling the community certificate based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. In this case the petitioner, on the date of cancelling the community certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer, had a valid community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Thiruvidaimaruthur, on 22-6-1989, after due verification. As the same has been issued before the date fixed by the Apex Court in the abovesaid decision namely 11-11-1989, the same is held to be valid. It is also clear that the Revenue Divisional Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in cancelling the community certificate of the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing whatsoever to the petitioner and the Revenue Divisional Officer without submitting the report to the District Collector proceeded to cancel the community certificate and a copy of the said report was not furnished to the petitioner to file his objections. As the Revenue Divisional Officer has cancelled the community certificate of the petitioner without due verification and without following due process of law, following the decision of the Apex Court as well as this Court cited above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently W.M.P. Nos. 17135 of 1995 and 15527 of 1996 are closed. Petition allowed.