Judgment : 1. The petitioner’s father belongs to Kattunaicken community which has been notified as Scheduled Tribe. On the strength of the said certificate, the petitioner was issued with a similar certificate certifying her as belonging to Kattunaicken community by the Tahsildar, Madurai South. The said certificate was issued on 28.7.86 when the petitioner was aged 10 years. Based on the said certificate, the petitioner completed her education. The genuineness of the said certificate was sought to be verified by th e District Collector, Madurai who, by an order dated 23.10.2002, cancelled the certificate. On the basis of the order of the District Collector, the petitioner has been prosecuted for the offence under Sections 468, 471 and 420, IPC in cr.No.25 of 2004 on the file of respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). 3. The petitioner has questioned the registration of the case basically on the ground that the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Madurai South dated 28.7.86 is valid as long as the same is cancelled in the manner known to law. As the District Collector is not empowered to cancel the said certificate, the order of cancellation which was the basis for registration of the case is invalid and consequently the registration of the case as well. 4. The fact remains that the father of the petitioner was issued with a community certificate certifying him to belong to Kattunaicken community which is notified as Scheduled Tribe, by the Deputy Tahsildar, Madurai on 28.10.67 and the certificate was also endorsed by his proceedings No.L.Dis. 29877/G/67 dated 28.10.67. There is no further dispute that based on the said certificate, the petitioner was also issued with the community certificate certifying her to belong to Kattunaicken community by the Tahsildar, Madurai South on 28.7.86. The said certificate was issued when the petitioner was aged about 10 years, as her date of birth was 26.11.76. Since the Directorate of Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare in its letter dated 2.3.98 directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai to enquire about the genuineness of the certificate issued to the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the District Committee on 30.9.2002 and by an order dated 23.10.2002, the District Collector had cancelled the community certificate. 5. Since the Directorate of Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare in its letter dated 2.3.98 directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai to enquire about the genuineness of the certificate issued to the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the District Committee on 30.9.2002 and by an order dated 23.10.2002, the District Collector had cancelled the community certificate. 5. The issue as to the validity of the community certificate issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildars came up for consideration by the Government and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2137, Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 11.11.89 empowering the Community Certificates to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer after the date of the Government Order. In view of the said Government Order, the certificates issued by the Tahsildars were presumably validated by the Government. In fact in letter No.39l7/ADW-II/91-3 dated 3.4.91, the Adi-dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department confirmed the presumption that the permanent community certificates issued to Scheduled Tribes by the Tahsildars upto 11.11.89 are valid. There is a further letter of the Secretary to Government, Adi-dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department in letter No.39484/ADW-II/ 91-1 dated 16.9.91 whereby all the District Collectors were addressed and requested to validate the permanent community certificates issued to the Scheduled Tribes prior to the issue of G.O.Ms.No.2137 dated 11.11.89. In fact number of such certificates were validated by the respective Tahsildars. 6. The validity of the certificates issued by the Tahsildars came up for consideration before this Court on more than one occasion. In Dr. G.Elango v. Madras Port Trust, 1991 WLR 856, it was held that the certificate issued by the Tahsildar who was the competent authority at the relevant point of time was sufficient enough and the authorities could not insist for production of the community certificate from a different authority contrary to law and in excess of jurisdiction. 7. TheGovernment Order dated 11.11.89 also came up for consideration before this Court in K.Suresh Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 1996 Mad. 396 , wherein this Court had held that the Government Order is only prospective in operation in view of the language employed in the Government Order viz., “the Government direct that the community certificates in respect of all communities included in the list of Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of appointments in public services under Central and state Governments, Public Sector Undertakings, Quasi-Govt. Institutions, Boards, etc., shall hereafter be issued only by the Revenue Divisional Officers.” In fact the very Government Order dated 11.11.89 came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in R.Kandasamy v. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust, 1997 (3) CTC 36, wherein the supreme Court has held that the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.89 is good and valid for all purposes so long as the certificate is not cancelled and the authority cannot insist upon fresh community certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer. 8. Inthe circumstances, it should be now considered as to whether the cancellation of the community certificate was valid and in accordance with law. Law on cancellation of the community certificate is settled by the supreme Court in the judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94 , wherein the Supreme Court directed the State Government to constitute a Committee to go into the genuineness of such of those community certificates. The constitution of the Committee is also indicated in the said judgment, which reads thus: “All the State Governments shall constitute a committee, of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (ii) the Director, Social welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward class Welfare, as the case may be, and (iii) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the scheduled Tribes, the Research officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.” The District Level Committee which considered the community certificate of the petitioner consisted the District Collector and one Executive Member, District Vigilance Committee cum Adi-dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer. The constitution of the Committee is not in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court. An order passed by the committee which has not been constituted in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court cannot be considered as an order in the eye of law, as such Committee would not have jurisdiction to go into the genuineness of the community certificate. An order passed by the committee which has not been constituted in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court cannot be considered as an order in the eye of law, as such Committee would not have jurisdiction to go into the genuineness of the community certificate. In such event, the said order cannot be the basis for registering a case against the petitioner. It is further to be noted that on the date when the certificate was issued, the petitioner was only 10 years of age. When the basis of the FIR itself is illegal, the further investigation and prosecution shall also be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. In fact I myself, under similar circumstances, has quashed the proceedings in Crl.O.P.No.10023 of 2001 by an order dated 13.8.2002. T.V.Masilamani, J. has also quashed the proceedings under similar circumstances in Crl.O.P.No.9203 of 2002 by an order dated 24.7.2003. On this ground, the petitioner must succeed. Accordingly, the proceedings pending in Cr.No.25 of 2004 on the file of the respondent are quashed and the petition is allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.8275 of 2004 is closed.