DEVINDER GUPTA, C. J. ( 1 ) THE genesis giving rise to these cases is the report of the Director of Tribal Welfare submitted on the social status of one sri. J. Maralidhar son of Sri J. S. Venkateswara rao, a candidate said to have been selected for Group-l Services under limited recruitment quota meant for Scheduled Tribe candidates who claimed to belong to "bartika" community, notified as a Scheduled Tribe community. ( 2 ) THE facts of the cases are so interwoven that arguments were heard jointly and we have felt that separate decision in each of the cases would be nothing but futile exercise of repeating all facts again and again. As such, we are deciding these cases by a common Judgment. ( 3 ) SHRI J. Muralidhar appeared for interview for Group-l Services under scheduled Tribe quota conducted by Andhra pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), Hyderabad. The Secretary, appsc in his letter-dated 10-11-1993 referred the cases of all candidates, who had claimed Scheduled Tribe status and appeared for interview to the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, hyderabad for verification of their Scheduled tribe status. The Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal by order dated 17-11-1993 passed in MASR. No. 13035 of 1993 in OASR. No. 13034 of 1993 also directed the Commissionesr of Tribal welfare to verify the claim of all candidates who were qualified for interview to be held for selection to Group-l Services of government of Andhra Pradesh and furnish the verification report of each one of the candidates referred to by the Secretary, appsc. ( 4 ) AS a consequence of the above, the director of Tribal Welfare proceeded to enquire into the social status claim of all the candidates including that of Sri J. Muralidhar, who claimed to belong to Bartika, a scheduled Tribe Community. He appears to have produced before the Director of Tribal welfare, community certificate issued by the mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Urban) in SR. Dis. No. 1276/93 dt. 18-5-1993, issued on the basis of the previous community certificate issued to him by the then Tahsildar/m. R. O, Visakhapatnam in rc. No. 1248/70 dated 5-11-1986 to the effect that Sri J. Muralidhar belong to Bartika community, declared as a Scheduled Tribe community. Dis. No. 1276/93 dt. 18-5-1993, issued on the basis of the previous community certificate issued to him by the then Tahsildar/m. R. O, Visakhapatnam in rc. No. 1248/70 dated 5-11-1986 to the effect that Sri J. Muralidhar belong to Bartika community, declared as a Scheduled Tribe community. At this stage of the proceedings, we need not go into the details of the enquiry, but it would suffice to state that the director of Tribal Welfare prepared his report on 10-3-1996 recording a finding that sri J. Muralidhar does not belong to any scheduled Tribe community and that he belongs to Sistikaranams Community (O. C. ). Sri J. Muralidhar in the meanwhile had been appointed as Deputy superintendent of Police by G. O. Ms. No. 697 dated 3-10-1994. ( 5 ) IT further appears that while furnishing a copy of enquiry report to the District collector, Visakhpatnam, the Director of tribal Welfare in his letter dated 4-5-1996 requested the Collector to cancel the community certificate dated 5-11-1986 issued to J. Muralidhar as also the Certificate dated 18-5-1993 issued to him by the then tahsildar/mro, Visakhapatnam, after following due procedure prescribed in g. O. Ms. No. 282 Social Welfare (J-20 department dated 19-12-1988. This led to issuance of show cause notice by the district Collector in Rc. No. 3032/96/tw dated 25-5-1996 to J. Muralidhar, the then deputy Superintendent of Police, kasibugga, Srikakulam District to show cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why the caste certificate issued to him to the effect that he belongs to Bhatrika community should not be cancelled. Notice said to have been sent to him under Registered Post could not be served since he was not residing at the given address at Visakhapatnam. In the meanwhile, Government had also received a copy of the report of the Director. The government also separately issued order in g. O. Ms. No. 95 Social Welfare (J2) department dated 19-8-1996 basing on the report of the Director of Tribal Welfare, requesting the Collector to take action against the false social status certificate, alleged to have been produced by Sri J. Muralidhar as per rules and procedure. ( 6 ) SRI Muralidhar on coming to know of g. O. Ms. No. 95 dated 19-8-1996 issued by the Government, questioned the said action of the Government by fling Writ Petition no. 9607 of 1997 on 30-4-1997. ( 6 ) SRI Muralidhar on coming to know of g. O. Ms. No. 95 dated 19-8-1996 issued by the Government, questioned the said action of the Government by fling Writ Petition no. 9607 of 1997 on 30-4-1997. He sought quashing of G. O. Msno. 95 dated 19-8-1996 as illegal and void. The Writ Petition No. 9607 of 1997 was allowed on 30-3-1998 by a learned Single Judge holding that the order of the Government is illegal and without jurisdiction. It was however made it clear that it is open for the Collector to initiate action as contemplated under Section 5 of the Andhra pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of issuance of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (Act No. 16 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act ), which came into force with effect from 16-5-1997 and the rules framed thereunder and the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time, uninfluenced by the conclusion reached by the Government as disclosed in g. O. Ms. No. 95 dated 19-8-1996. ( 7 ) AS noticed above the Collector had already issued showcause notice to muralidhar, which was not served upon him. In the meanwhile G. O. Ms. No. 95 dated 19-8-1996 had been issued which was set aside by the order of the learned Single judge. The Collector accordingly proceeded further in the matter as per Rule 18 of the andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes, scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes - issue of Community, Nativity and Date of birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). The said Rule provides that where complaints are received regarding the community claim of any employee/prospective employee/student claiming to belong to a Scheduled Caste/ scheduled Tribe or backward Class, the appointing authority/employer/educational institution must refer the same to the District collector of the District from where the competent Authority has issued the certificate. As per Rule 8 of the Rules, the district Collector in turn is required to get it verified by the Scrutiny Committee constituted at the District level. Therefore, the District Collector appears to have referred the matter to District Level Scrutiny committee to submit its finding. On that basis, the District Level Scrutiny Committee took up the enquiry in the matter and posted hearing of the matter to 27-10-1998. Therefore, the District Collector appears to have referred the matter to District Level Scrutiny committee to submit its finding. On that basis, the District Level Scrutiny Committee took up the enquiry in the matter and posted hearing of the matter to 27-10-1998. A notice in Form-VI as required under the Rules was issued on 11-10-1998 to J. Muralidhar directing him to appear before the Scrutiny committee. Mr. J. Muralidhar felt that this conduct on the part of the District Collector, visakhapatnam and Joint Collector and chairman of the Scrutiny Committee (Tribal welfare), Visakhapatnam was in violation of the order of the Court dated 30-3-1998 passed in W. P. No. 9607 of 1997. He, therefore, filed a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act (C. C. No. 1659) with a prayer to take action against the said authorities. ( 8 ) INTERESTINGLY, during the pendency of the Contempt Case No. 1659 of 1998, Sri, j. S. Venkateswararao, son of Bapurao, father of J. Muralidhar approached this Court and filed W. P. No. 6768 of 2001 in the month of April, 2001 and sought a declaration that the action of the Government of Andhra pradesh in doubting/suspecting his status as scheduled Tribe without ascertaining the facts and gathering material from him and proceeding against his children is unconstitutional, illegal and sought direction against the State of Andhra Pradesh not to disturb the social status of his children as scheduled Tribe without ascertaining the facts from him. He alleged that his parents were born and lived at Parlakhudi Taluk, itchapauram of erstwhile Ganjam District, which was part of composite State of madras, that he was born at Gottlabadra village and that his parents belong to Bartika caste, which caste status he inherited by birth. It was further alleged that he studied at sorangi Govt. High School, Itchapuram, his educational records discloses that he was bartika by caste. He joined Government service in 1943 as Technical Overseer and retired from Service in October, 1974 as assistant Engineer. He alleged that he had nine children and their castes was noted as bartika and his children got entry into government Service claiming the caste as bartika caste and that he had not abandoned Bartika caste people. He joined Government service in 1943 as Technical Overseer and retired from Service in October, 1974 as assistant Engineer. He alleged that he had nine children and their castes was noted as bartika and his children got entry into government Service claiming the caste as bartika caste and that he had not abandoned Bartika caste people. He further alleged that on some false complaints made by certain vested interests and individuals, with the object of blackmailing persons recruited to Government Service, a doubt had been created about his sons social status. The provisions of Act 16 of 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder contemplate forming of prima facie opinion by the competent authority before initiating proceedings for cancellation of community certificate. Without ascertaining the correct facts from him about his caste/status, it was not open for the State of Andhra Pradesh or any of the official of the State to take any action either against him or against his children. In this background, he claimed relief in the Writ Petition. ( 9 ) ALONG with the Writ Petition 6768 of 2001, miscellaneous petition WPMP. 8607 of 2001 was also filed for direction to the 1st respondent not to form any prima facie opinion as to the caste/social status of the petitioner other than as Scheduled Tribe pending disposal of the Writ petition. While the Writ Petition was pending for admission, it appears that the petitioner u. S. Venkateswararao died and his wife srnt. J. V. Ramanakumari was brought on record as Legal Representative of the deceased writ petitioner on 3-1-2002. She also filed a miscellaneous petition wpmp. No. 27983 of 2001 for interim direction to 1st respondent not to interfere with the caste/social status of her children without affording an opportunity to her. A learned single Judge, while admitting the writ petition passed interim directions on 4-1-2002 in W. P. M. P. Nos. 8607 and 27983 of 2001 directing the respondents not to interfere with the Caste/social status of the petitioner s children without affording an opportunity to her. ( 10 ) THEREAFTER, C. C. No. 1659 of 1998 filed by Sri J. Muralidhar came up for consideration before the learned single judge who had decided the main writ petition W. P. No. 9607 of 1997. ( 10 ) THEREAFTER, C. C. No. 1659 of 1998 filed by Sri J. Muralidhar came up for consideration before the learned single judge who had decided the main writ petition W. P. No. 9607 of 1997. The Judge did not pass any order in the contempt petition, as contemplated under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, but proceeded to deal with the legality and validity of the notice dated 11-10-1998 issued by the Scrutiny and Review committee observing that the appropriate authority exercising powers under the provisions of the Act ought not to have depended upon the report of the Director of tribal Welfare but ought to have proceeded to form its own opinion under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, on 1-3-2002 direction was issued to the Collector, who had issued notice-dated 11 -10-1998 to proceed with the matter independently without reference to any report or recommendation from any circle or any other body making it clear that it was open to the Collector to proceed with the matter in accordance with Section 5 of the Act and the rules, namely, Rule 8 of the rules. It was directed that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months form the date of receipt of copy of the order. ( 11 ) THE District Level Scrutiny Committee issued another notice in Rc. No. 3032/96. 5 dated 15-6-2002 directing J. Muralidhar to attend enquiry on 29-6-2002 but the notice was returned unserved. Copy of the notice sent to his lawyer was also not returned back. Thereafter whereabouts of the Officer were obtained and another notice-dated 1-7-2002 was sent under registered post to j. Muralidhar to attend the enquiry on 15-7-2002 before the District Level Scrutiny committee. As the enquiry could not be completed within the stipulated period, C. A. No. 544 of 2002 was filed by sri J. Muralidhar seeking extension of time to complete the enquiry. The learned Single judge by order dated 26-4-2002 extended the time finally upto 31 -8-2002. ( 12 ) AT this stage it may be mentioned that the above show cause notice led smt. J. V. Ramanakumari, the mother of j. Muralidhar, filing another application under the Contempt of Courts Act (C. C. . N0. The learned Single judge by order dated 26-4-2002 extended the time finally upto 31 -8-2002. ( 12 ) AT this stage it may be mentioned that the above show cause notice led smt. J. V. Ramanakumari, the mother of j. Muralidhar, filing another application under the Contempt of Courts Act (C. C. . N0. 729 of 2002) complaining that the action of the respondents in proceedings to issue notice to J. Muralidhar amounts to wilful violation of the orders passed on 4-1-2002, which had required the respondents not to interfere with the caste/ social status of the children of the petitioner without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Action was sought to be initiated against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act in having violated the order. A miscellaneous application C. A. No. 690 of 2002 was also moved in the said contempt case to stay all further proceedings including the enquiry in pursuance to the showcause notice dated 27-5-2002. The said interim prayer was allowed. Interim stay was granted for a period of ten days on 27-6-2002, which was extended till further orders on 4-7-2002. The said Contempt case is still pending. It is interesting to note that on one hand J. Muralidhar sought extension of time to enable the inquiry to be completed, on the other hand his mother sought stay of the inquiry. ( 13 ) IN W. P. No. 6768 of 2001 Sri Sunil sharma, Administrative Officer, Collector s office, Visakhapatnam filed a counter- affidavit narrating the circumstances leading to the Collector issuing showcause notice dated 25-5-1996 to Muralidhar, filing of writ petition - W. P. No. 9607 of 1997 and issuance of order in C. C. No. 1659 of 1998, pointing out that since the matter was referred to the district Level Scrutiny Committee to give their opinion, the Joint Collector and chairman of the District Level Scrutiny committee issued notice on 27-5-2002 to j. Muralidhar directing him to attend the Joint collector s Chambers, Collector s Office, visakhapatnam in connection with the enquiry on 10-6-2002 regarding his community claim and furnish all documentary evidence in support of his claim. After stating further facts that now due to stay inquiry has not proceeded ahead, it is pleaded that an Officer whose caste certificate was suspected in the report of director of Tribal Welfare had been called for detailed enquiry and it was open for the said officer (son of the petitioner in W. P. 6768 of 2001) to appear before the authority constituted under the provisions of the Act. Thus, it is stated that filing of the writ petition appears to be an attempt to stall the enquiry into the matter, which require attention at the hands of the competent authority. ( 14 ) WHILE the matters stood at that, another Writ Petition (W. P. No. 18757 of 2002) was filed on 23-9-2002 by sri J. Satyanand, the brother of J. Muralidhar and son of J. S. Venkateswara Rao, questioning the act of the authorities in enquiring into the social status of the family members of his father J. S. Venkateswara rao, with a prayer to declare the attempts of the respondents to alter the social status of the family of Sri. J. S. Venkateswara Rao as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and for a further direction directing the respondents not to alter the social status of the children and grand children of Late j. S. Venkateswara Rao as appearing in the official records. Pending disposal of the writ petition, interim directions were also sought. This Writ petition is also pending. ( 15 ) ON 9-1-2003, the Andhra Pradesh scheduled Tribes Employees Association represented by its President filed a Writ petition (W. P. No. 799 of 2003) as PIL impleading eight respondents, including Sri j. R. Anand as Respondent No. 8 who is the brother of Sri J. Muralidhar, seeking a direction to order C. B. I, enquiry in the matter of Sri J. R. Anand, a Member of India administrative Service and holding the officer of Managing Director, Quli Qutub shahi Development Authority, Hyderabad about his claim of the social status as scheduled Tribe at the time of his entry into the Indian administrative Service, alleging that the caste certificate obtained by him is fake/bogus one and also sought consequential directions. The Association claims that its aims and objects are to cater social service amongst the tribals and to look after their welfare and to keep a watchful eye and observe the employees who are entering into the service of State and Centre by deceitful means by producing fake/bogus caste certificates and to see that justice is done to the candidates belonging to scheduled Tribe community. With that object the petition has been field as PIL. The petitioner claims that as a result of its efforts several fake/bogus certificate holders were unearthed. It is alleged that Respondent no. 8 joined All India Service in 1977-78 by producing fake/bogus Scheduled Tribe certificate and occupied coveted posts by deceitful means. The association has furnished details and particulars of the nine children of late J. S. Venkateswara Rao viz. , seven sons and two daughters. It is alleged that the Director of Tribal Welfare had submitted his report, which had led to issuing a showcause notice to one of the brother so Respondent No. 8. The association alleged that Respondent No. 8 belongs to "sistikaranam" caste, which is not a Scheduled Tribe community. The association has further alleged that the father of Respondent No. 8 and his forefathers had established a school, namely, p. C. M. School at Rajahmundry. All their children studied in their own school and they conveniently tampered the school records mentioning in the records that they belong to "bartika" community. For the purpose of our order, we need not go into the further details as have been alleged in the petition. Suffice it to say that the petitioner has alleged number of representations were sent by the association to higher authorities but no action has been taken by the authorities concerned to enquire into the social status of respondent No. 8. Since Respondent No. 8 was holding a coveted post in the government belonging to Indian administrative Service, it was all the more necessary to order a high level enquiry, preferably, by C. B. I, to enquire into the allegations and submit its report and on receipt of report to take appropriate action in accordance with law. ( 16 ) THE aforesaid Writ Petition No. 799 of 2003 is vehemently opposed by Respondent no. 8, who filed counter-affidavit stating that directions cannot be issued in the Writ petition filed as PIL. ( 16 ) THE aforesaid Writ Petition No. 799 of 2003 is vehemently opposed by Respondent no. 8, who filed counter-affidavit stating that directions cannot be issued in the Writ petition filed as PIL. In any case, enquiry into social status of Respondent No. 8 at this belated stage cannot be ordered. A preliminary objection has been taken about the locus standi of the petitioner-Association to maintain the Writ Petition alleging that the president of the association is not an affected person and he is in no way connected with the appointment of respondent No. 8. Appointment of respondent No. 8 to India Administrative service was made by the Union Public service Commission after due verification of his antecedents like castes, creed etc. Any investigation now sought to be carried out after a lapse of more then 22 years will seriously prejudice his career. Material allegations made in the petition are neither true, nor correct which have specifically been denied by Respondent No. 8. It is also pleaded that such petitions filed as PIL by bodies like the petitioner-association cannot be allowed which will adversely affect the valuable rights of respondent No. 8 who had entered into service in the year 1979. ( 17 ) RESPONDENT No. 8 denied the allegation that he and his family members orginally settled in State of Andhra Pradesh at Rajahmundry and his forefathers came there from the State of Orissa. It is alleged that their family stayed at Prakashnagar, rajahmundry during the period 1972-82 when his father was posted in gallalamamidala and at that time he worked as a lecturer in S. K. R. College, Rajahmundry for a period of three years and later during the period of his IAS training for two years. The allegation that his father and forefathers established P. C. M. School at Rajahumundry and the school record were tampered have been denied as without any basis. Respondent No. 8 denied that members of his family established Prakasham Centenary memorial School at Rajahumundry. He claims that the said school was established by Sri Datla Balarama Raju, who was elected as Member of Parliament during 1957-62 and 1963-68 from Rajahmundry constituency. He was the founder member of the school, which was upgraded to High school during the year 1972-73. He claims that the said school was established by Sri Datla Balarama Raju, who was elected as Member of Parliament during 1957-62 and 1963-68 from Rajahmundry constituency. He was the founder member of the school, which was upgraded to High school during the year 1972-73. Late Sri balarama Raju was the founder President of the school during 1971-72 and later his son datla Venkatapati Raju became the corespondent of the school. Respondent no. 8 says that this information could be obtained by him from the Commissioner and director of School Education, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad. Respondent No. 8 has further alleged that their family hails from parlakemundi Estate of old Visakhapatnam district. Later on their family migrated to Itchapuram, Waltair of erstwhile visakhapatnam District and stayed there for a long time. His grand father sri J. Bapurarao alias Bappa Rao lived in anakapalli, Visakhapatnam district in his last day and died there in the years 1952. ( 18 ) RESPONDENT No. 8 has further alleged that his father was born on 10-10-1919 and he entered the service of the Government of madras in 1943. In the Service Register of his father against the column Religion, it is noted as "hindu, Non-Brahmin (Oria- bartiak)" as it was the practice of the pre- independence Government of Composite madras State of record Hindus as "brahmin" and "non-Brahmin" in all records. The same noting continued in school records of all his brothers, himself and his sisters. School record of his father also shows that the he was "bartika" and was born on 10-10-1919. The Collector and District Magistrate, visakhapatnam, issued a certificate dated 27-7-1966 to his father in L. Dis. 2916/6 C. 4 disclosing that his father belonged to "bartika" community, a Scheduled Tribe under the Scheduled Tribe Notification order, 1956. ( 19 ) RESPONDENT No. 8 has also pleaded that the petitioner has not correctly mentioned the names of the family members in the petition. In the reply affidavit he furnished the correct names of the members of his family, namely, seven sons and two daughters of late J. S. Venkateswara Rao. Respondent no. ( 19 ) RESPONDENT No. 8 has also pleaded that the petitioner has not correctly mentioned the names of the family members in the petition. In the reply affidavit he furnished the correct names of the members of his family, namely, seven sons and two daughters of late J. S. Venkateswara Rao. Respondent no. 8 has also attacked on merits the findings recorded in the report of the Director of Tribal welfare stating that by mistake in one certificate issued to one of his brothers, community might have been shown as "bhatrika", which has been relied upon by the Director of Tribal Welfare but the same is of no consequence and cannot have any adverse effect on his caste certificate since he was selected to IAS in 1979 and before he could make an entry into the said service his claim regarding the social status and antecedents were thoroughly enquired into. It is a known fact that appointments to All india Service or any other higher services arr made only after an elaborate enquiry conducted into the antecedents, social status etc. Thus denying all material allegation made in the writ petition, respondent No. 8 has alleged that the petitioner-association has not come to the court with clean hands. They are making contradictory claims by falsely alleging that pcm School, Prakashnagar, Rajahmundry was established by the Respondents family and falsely claiming that they are resident s of Rajahmundry. The entire effort of the petitioner s Association in filing the petition, as PIL is only to extract money from respondent No. 8 and their family members and such motivated petition on directions need be issued. ( 20 ) CONSIDERING the nature of reliefs prayed for in each petition as also the scope of PIL, it was first ordered that argument s will be heard in the petition filed as PIL since it was instituted in the year 2003 wherein the social status of Respondent No. 8, who had rendered more then 22 years of service in india Administrative Service was under challenge and thereafter to hear the other petitions. The other two Writ petitions had been filed as a result of the report of the director of Tribal Welfare and pursuant to orders passed by this Court in W. P. No. 9607 of 1997. Accordingly, the petitions and the contempt case were set down for hearing. The other two Writ petitions had been filed as a result of the report of the director of Tribal Welfare and pursuant to orders passed by this Court in W. P. No. 9607 of 1997. Accordingly, the petitions and the contempt case were set down for hearing. ( 21 ) DURING the course of arguments learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W. P. No. 799 of 2003 submitted that in view of the nature of dispute, the question as regards the genuineness of the certificates will have to be decided in an enquiry initiated as per the provisions of the act and the Rules made thereunder. The enquiry under the Act is required to be conducted by the District Collector. Respondent No. 8 is a senior IAS Officer. His brother J. Muralidhar, who was petitioner in W. P. No. 9607/97, is also holding a higher post in the Police Department. It might be an embarrassing situation for the two Officers as well as for the District Collector to enquire into the genuineness of the community certificates of the Officers. In any case, in order to avoid any objection, that an officer lower in hierarchy might be conducting inquiry it would be highly desirable to have the enquiry entrusted to an Officer higher in rank than the District Collector or to entrust the inquiry to C. B. I. After this suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Respondent No. 8 submitted that without prejudice to the right and contentions of Respondent No. 8, there cannot be any valid objection for respondent No. 8 to face the enquiry as regards the genuineness of the community certificate issued. However, he submitted that in view of the apprehensions as expressed on behalf of the petitioner, it may not be just and proper to entrust the enquiry to CBI or to an Officer higher in status than the District Collector. He submitted that the purpose can be best achieved if the enquiry is conducted by a retired Judge of the High court having experience of trial of civil suits. Learned counsel for the petitioner readily agreed to this suggestion and submitted that the petitioner-Association will have no objection in the event a retired High Court judge is nominated for conducting the enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner readily agreed to this suggestion and submitted that the petitioner-Association will have no objection in the event a retired High Court judge is nominated for conducting the enquiry. ( 22 ) CONSIDERING the suggestions aforementioned of the learned counsel for the parties that due to the report of the director of tribal Welfare genuineness of the caste certificate of Sri J. Muralidhar was under question and so would be the case as regards Respondent No. 8 and his brothers and sisters, the Court felt that the suggestion to have the enquiry conducted by a retired judge of this Court deserves to be accepted. As such, the learned Government Pleader was asked to have appropriate instructions as to what objection the State Government will have in the event of the enquiry being entrusted to a retired Judge of this Court and also as regards the reimbursement of the expenses for executing the Commission by a retired Judge of this Court. Accordingly the cases were adjourned to enable the learned government Pleader to have appropriate instructions. On the adjourned hearing learned Government Pleader pointed out that the Government had no objection in case the enquiry is ordered to be conducted by a retired Judge of this Court and it was assured that all expenses for executing the commission would be borne by the State government. ( 23 ) AFTER the Government Pleader conveyed decision of the Government, an objection was raised on behalf of respondent No. 8 for entrustment of enquiry to an authority other than the one named in the Act. Other objections were also raised on behalf of Respondent No. 8. We need not take notice of said objections since they are not relevant. But the fact remains that the stand now taken on behalf of Respondent no. 8 is that the suggestion made earlier of having the enquiry conducted by a retired judge of this Court is not now acceptable. These facts are duly noticed in the docket orders. In these circumstances, the cases were posted for being heard on merits. Arguments were heard. Elaborate submissions were made at the bar by learned counsel for the parties. Written notes of submissions were also filed. Some of the points mentioned in the written submissions but not argued go beyond the pleadings, therefore, the same are not taken into consideration. In these circumstances, the cases were posted for being heard on merits. Arguments were heard. Elaborate submissions were made at the bar by learned counsel for the parties. Written notes of submissions were also filed. Some of the points mentioned in the written submissions but not argued go beyond the pleadings, therefore, the same are not taken into consideration. We have gone through the record of each case. ( 24 ) NARRATION of the aforementioned facts would reveal that the entire dispute arose when the A. P. P. S. C. referred the cases of the candidates who had appeared for interview for Group-l services for verification of their social status. It is also included the case of J. Muralidhar. A. P. Administrative tribunal has also passed orders directing the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare to verify the claims of the candidates who had appeared for interview and to furnish the verification report of each of the candidates referred to by the Secretary APPSC. During the course of enquiry by the Director of Tribal Welfare, the caste certificate of sri J. Muralidhar also came under scrutiny. It is not disputed that J. ; Muralidhar did participate in the proceedings at the initial stages but later on failed to participate in those proceedings. We have already noticed that we need not discuss the merits or demerits of the report of the Director of his findings including the manner in which the enquiry was conducted, except noticing the fact that the report dated 10-3-1996 was furnished by the Director of Tribal Welfare to the authorities concerned for taking appropriate action. As noticed above, the director opined that there was enough material suggesting that the caste certificate of J. Muralidhar was not genuine. ( 25 ) ON receipt of the report, the District collector, Visakhapatnam did issue a showcause notice on 25-5-1996 to j. Muralidhar as envisaged under the provision of the Act. Separately, g. O. Ms. no. 95 dated 19-8-1996 was issued by the Government, or receipt of the report of the enquiry, directing the District Collector to take action in the matter of false social status certificate alleged to have been obtained by J. Muralidhar. ( 26 ) J. Muralidhar at that stage filed Writ petition (W. P. No. 9607 of 1997) seeking to declare G. O. Ms. No. 95 dated 19-8-1996 as illegal and void. ( 26 ) J. Muralidhar at that stage filed Writ petition (W. P. No. 9607 of 1997) seeking to declare G. O. Ms. No. 95 dated 19-8-1996 as illegal and void. The Writ petition was disposed of holding the impugned g. O. Ms. 95 to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The reasons which prevailed with the learned Single Judge in holding so was that the Government being an appellate authority under the Act is entitled to review the orders passed by the Collector and to pass appropriate orders to the matter. The government had passed the impugned G. O. directing the Collector to initiate action to the basis of the report of the Director of Tribal welfare. Such a direction of the Government has no statutory support and runs counter to section 5 of the himself either suo motu or on an application made to him. Learned single Judge thus proceeded on the basis that it would not be proper on the part of the government to direct the Collector to proceed with the enquiry on the basis of the reports available with the Government, as it would amount to putting cart before the horse. It was further held that the government being an appellate authority under the statute cannot transmit material with a finding recorded that J. Maralidhar did not belong to Schedule Tribe Community, thereby completely incapacitating the competent authority to discharge its legitimate statutory function. Submission made by the learned Government Pleader in that writ petition that the enquiry report having been prepared by a competent authority has to be taken into consideration by the Collector while dealing with the matter under Section 5 of the Act was turned down on the ground that the very initiation of the proceedings by the Collector emanates in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 5 of the Act and not at the instance of the appellate authority, recording these findings, the learned Single judge left it open to the Collector to initiate action as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act and to proceed in accordance with the Rules and guidelines issued by the government from time to time uninfluenced by the conclusion reached by the government in its G. O. dated 19-8-1996. ( 27 ) AT this stage, we may notice another important aspect that Mr. J. Muralidhar in his writ petition (W. P. N9. ( 27 ) AT this stage, we may notice another important aspect that Mr. J. Muralidhar in his writ petition (W. P. N9. 9607 of 1997) had not questioned the showcause notice dated 25-5-1996 which has already been issued by the District Collector at the first instance. The said showcause notice has not been set aside in any proceeding subsequently till date after disposal of the Writ Petition, j. Muralidhar felt aggrieved when he received notice- dated 11-10-1998 in form-VI from the Joint Collector and chairman of the District Level Scrutiny committee calling upon him to appear before the Committee on 27-10-1998. He did not challenge even this notice issued by the district Level Scrutiny Committee, instead he filed a petition to initiate contempt proceedings (C. C. No. 1659 of 1998) against the respondent. Learned Single Judge did not hold any person guilty of having violated the directions of the Court. However, he proceeded to pass an order which is even beyond the scope of the writ petition observing that the Collector cannot depend upon the report of the Director of Tribal welfare but has to proceed do novo and enquire into the matter and complete the same in accordance with law independently without any reference to any report or recommendation from any circle or any other body. ( 28 ) AT the stage when the contempt petition (CC. No. 1659 of 1998) was pending, the father of Shri J. Muralidhar filed Writ petition No. 6768 of 2001 on the ground that the entire family was put to embarrassment and sought relief with respect to the social status of his children. The basis for filing the writ petition has already been noticed by us. An interim order was obtained After death of the father, the mother was substituted. She has been prosecuting the Writ Petition and also initiated proceedings for contempt wherein stay of all further proceedings including enquiry was ordered, as a result of which , the enquiry is not being proceeded with. Another brother of Respondent No. 8 named Shri J. Satyanand filed Writ Petition (W. P. No. 18757 of 2002) for almost similar relief, which is also pending. Another brother of Respondent No. 8 named Shri J. Satyanand filed Writ Petition (W. P. No. 18757 of 2002) for almost similar relief, which is also pending. While the said writ petitions were pending fresh, Writ petition as PIL (W. P. No. 799 of 2003) was filed by the Association seeking direction to conduct enquiry as regards the genuineness of the caste certificate issued to Respondent no. 8 on the ground that already prima facie view has been expressed by the Director of tribal Welfare about the genuineness of the caste certificate of one of the sons of late. J. S. Venkateswara Rao and there was enough material in support of the finding of the Director of Tribal welfare which would require an action to be taken under the provisions of the Act for holding an enquiry against Respondent No. 8. ( 29 ) WE may also mention here that the showcause notice issued on 27-5-2002 by the Joint Collector and Chairman of district Level Scrutiny Committee directing sri J. Muralidhar to attend the enquiry on 10-6-2002 and the notice dated 15-6-2002 issued by the Committee directing him to attend the enquiry on 29-6-2002 are not under challenge till date. These notices have been issued by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act and the Rule. Only in C. A. NO. 690 of 2002 the mother of shri J. Muralidhar sought stay of all further proceedings pursuant to show cause notice dated 27-5-2002, when she filed C. C. No. 729 of 2002 complaining violation of the interim orders dated 4-1-2002 passed in w. P. No. 6768 of 2001. Sri J. Muralidhar did not challenge the said showcause notice. ( 30 ) THE only impression one would gather from the facts aforementioned is that every effort is being made by one or the other members of the family of Sri J. Muralidhar to stop or stall holding of the requisite enquiry by the Collector as contemplated under the Act and the Rules. There is also a direction issued in the Writ petition of J. Muralidhar enabling the collector to conduct the requisite enquiry in accordance with law. Even time was extended to conclude the enquiry. In the meanwhile, stay was obtained. There is also a direction issued in the Writ petition of J. Muralidhar enabling the collector to conduct the requisite enquiry in accordance with law. Even time was extended to conclude the enquiry. In the meanwhile, stay was obtained. In the PIL a reasonable suggestion to entrust enquiry into the genuineness of the caste certificates by a retired Judge of High Court was also not acceptable to Respondent No. 8. As such, we are now left with no other option except to consider the submissions made at the bar. The first question is as to whether or not any directions need be issued in the petition filed as PIL and what relief deserves to be granted in the two petitions filed by Late j. S. Venkateswara Rao, the father and sri. J. Satyanand, the brother of Respondent no. 8. Another point to be considered is that whether or not to leave out Respondent No. 8 in W. P. No. 799 of 2003 from the purview of the enquiry, if any, because of various objections raised on behalf of Respondent no. 8 that he having joined service on the basis of caste certificate issued to him which was thoroughly enquired into before he entered into Indian Administrative Service, it is neither permissible nor appropriate at this stage to direct any enquiry or investigation into the matter, especially when he is at the fag end of his service career. ( 31 ) ON behalf of Respondent No. 8 in w. P. No. 799 of 2003, learned Senior advocate Sri Venkat Reddy also raised objections about the maintainability of the writ Petition PIL contending that the petitioner- association had not come to the court with clean hands, therefore, on the basis of the allegations made in the petition filed as PIL no direction can be issued to probe into the caste status of Respondent no. 8; there is otherwise inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court even after having come to know of the report of the Director of Tribal Welfare. It will otherwise be not appropriate to reopen the issue of the caste status of Respondent no. 8, who was at the fag end of his service career more particularly when Respondent no. It will otherwise be not appropriate to reopen the issue of the caste status of Respondent no. 8, who was at the fag end of his service career more particularly when Respondent no. 8 had joined All India Service on the strength of the caste certificate issued in his favour on the basis of the entries made in the service book of his late father. It will not be permissible to disturb such certificate after a long lapse of time. ( 32 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 8 also contended that the evidentiary value of the documents relating to pre-Constitution period, more particularly, the caste status of persons are of great value and must take precedence over any other evidence or material emanating in post-Constitution period for which reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others . It was further submitted that the report of the Tribal Welfare cannot be made use against Respondent No. 8 since the said report was neither communicated to respondent No. 8, nor Respondent No. 8 was a party to the proceedings before the director. Un-communicated report is not a report in the eye of law for which reliance was placed on the decision of the Division bench of this Court in Jalumurau Krushnam raju v. Commissioner of Tribal Welfare department, Andhra Predesh, Hyderabad. It was also submitted such a report cannot be made use of and form the basis of probe into the caste status of the other family members of Respondent No. 8. ( 33 ) PLACING reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappaa and others it was submitted that a perusal of the report and stand taken by the petitioner would suggest that erroneously advantage was being derived of wrong spellings or misspellings in the caste certificate of one of the brothers of respondent No. 8. By misspelling or not correctly mentioning the spelling in the caste certificate issued in favour of J. Muralidhar, a doubt cannot be said to have been created on the caste status of Respondents No. 8 and of his family members who belong to a community that prior to the commencement of the Constitution was known as "oriya, bartika". By misspelling or not correctly mentioning the spelling in the caste certificate issued in favour of J. Muralidhar, a doubt cannot be said to have been created on the caste status of Respondents No. 8 and of his family members who belong to a community that prior to the commencement of the Constitution was known as "oriya, bartika". The father of Respondent No. 8 had joined Government service in the then composite State of Madras in 1943 and the entry in his Service Book reflects his caste status us "oriya, Bartika" - Oriya is noted to indicate the language of the region of the state from which the individual hailed and "bartika" would indicate his community. Learned counsel submitted that this was the practice being observed while noting the community in the Service Books prior to independence of the country. As such no doubt can be created on the community of respondent No. 8 and his family members due to misspelling or spelling of the caste either in Caste Certificates issued or otherwise. ( 34 ) SIMILAR submissions were made by the same learned Senior Counsel who also appeared on behalf of the mother of respondent No. 8 and his brother j. Satyanand in the other two Writ petitions. It was submitted that the entire basis of initiating the proceedings against the family members is nothing but the report of the director of Tribal Welfare. Learned counsel tried to demonstrate before us that the report itself is based on false and incorrect assumptions and cannot be made the basis for initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Act. He made reference to section 21 of the Act, which says that a community certificate issued by any authority competent to issue the same under the relevant rules or orders before the commencement of the Act shall unless it is cancelled under the provisions Act is valid and shall be deemed to have been issued under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it was submitted that the certificate issued by the competent authority before the commencement of the Act as per the then rules and regulations can be cancelled under the provisions of the Act only by resorting to Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, it was submitted that the certificate issued by the competent authority before the commencement of the Act as per the then rules and regulations can be cancelled under the provisions of the Act only by resorting to Section 5 of the Act. District collector alone either suo motu or on a written complaint by any person, is entitled to call for and enquire into the correctness of the certificate in case, he is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently. He is then entitled to cancel the same after giving the person concerned an opportunity to make a representation. His submission was that the Collector was to act either suo motu of on a complaint of any person. There was neither any complaint before the collector not the Collector had exercised suo motu powers in this case. Action has been initiated only on the basis of the report of the director of Tribal Welfare, which is made the foundation for issuing show cause notice for cancellation of the certificate. ( 35 ) THE reason is our dealing with the cases by a common order, as we have already indicated, is to avoid repetition of facts over and over again and also to make the entire conspectus clear. We have earlier observed that the entire effort on the part of sri J. Muralidhar and other members of his family is to avoid the enquiry initiated by the collector under the provisions of the Act and the Rules as to the genuineness of the community certificate issued in favour of Sri j. Muralidhar. While the matter stood thus, w. P. No. 799 of 2003 was filed as PIL also involving Sri J. Anand, another brother of Sri j. Muralidhar who is impleaded as respondent No. 8 therein. Effort of respondent No. 8 also appears to be to avoid any enquiry as to his social status. His apprehension is that in case for one reason or the other it is found that his community certificate and the community certificate issued in favour of his brother Sri j. Muralidhar are liable to be cancelled, he is likely to come under adverse comments or it might lead to losing his job or that some other adverse action might be taken against him. Such apprehension is misconceived since that stage has not yet reached. Such apprehension is misconceived since that stage has not yet reached. Only a doubt has been raised as a result of the enquiry by the Director of Tribal Welfare as regards the claim of Mr. J. Muralidhar, at a stage of when he had not yet been appointed as Deputy Superintendent of police. It is not the case of Sri J. Muralidhar or his family members that it was not competent for the authorities at that relevant time to have forwarded the papers to the director of Tribal Welfare for enquiry. It was so done because of various orders or guidelines issued in that behalf. ( 36 ) IN Kumari Madhuri Patil s case (1 supra) similar question had arisen when some of the students were alleged to have gained admission to professional Colleges on the basis of false community certificate thereby getting advantage over those who otherwise would be entitled to admission. Supreme Court considering the facts of the said case observed that the admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessary has the effect of depriving the genuine scheduled Castes or scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutional or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. It was also noticed that the ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry may resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny committee constituted for the purpose. The supreme Court also observed that it is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent since on that date many a times the student may be a junior. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. Therefore, the supreme Court emphasized that it is necessary that the certificate so issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. After making these observations, Supreme Court issued consequential directions and suggestions for streamlining the procedure for issuance of social status certificate, their scrutiny and their approval. State Government were directed to constitute Scrutiny Committee and Vigilance Cell. After making these observations, Supreme Court issued consequential directions and suggestions for streamlining the procedure for issuance of social status certificate, their scrutiny and their approval. State Government were directed to constitute Scrutiny Committee and Vigilance Cell. The Supreme Court observed that in case the initial inquiry would reveal a doubt on the certificate there should be a competent authority to deal with the matter, which should go into the question, and after hearing the party concerned should as soon as the findings are recorded to proceed to pass consequential orders. ( 37 ) IN the instant case, the Director submitted his report pursuant to the order of a. P. P. S. C. which has asked him to verify the claim of those who had appeared in interview claiming a particular status. His verification revealed that the caste certificate of Sri J. Muralidhar, the son of mr. J. S. Venkateswara Rao was not genuine. On receipt of such verification report further action, if any, has to be taken by competent authorities, in accordance with law. The crux now is that should further action be stopped? ( 38 ) ). While exercising our powers under article 226 of the Constitution, it will not be permissible for us at this stage to go into the disputed questions of fact that whether the caste status as claimed by Respondent No. 8 or by his brother is genuine or not. It will also not be permissible for us to comment upon the merits of the report of the Director of tribal welfare. The matter is required to be further probed, whether it be pertaining to sri J. Muralidhar or to his brother or other family members. We would rather observe that it would be in the interest of not only sri J. Muralidhar but also in the interest of the other brothers as well as other members of the family to appear before the competent authority and participate in the proceedings so that the matter is settled for all time to come. We would rather observe that it would be in the interest of not only sri J. Muralidhar but also in the interest of the other brothers as well as other members of the family to appear before the competent authority and participate in the proceedings so that the matter is settled for all time to come. The enquiry cannot be thwarted on the plea that one of the brothers was appointed more than 22 years ago or that in the Service Book of his father, who worked in the erstwhile Composite State of Madras, the caste is noted as "bartika" or that the collector issued a certificate disclosing that his father belonged to "bartika" community which should be held final, conclusive and binding. In view of the verification report of the Director of Tribal Welfare, there is at least some basis and foundation for the collector to move further in the matter. It will always be open for Sri J. Muralidhar or to his other brothers who are likely to be affected by the orders to be passed by the Collector to clear their position, otherwise the matter would remain in suspended animation. In the event plea of Respondent No. 8 (in w. P. No. 799 of 2003) is accepted that no direction be issued in his case to order similar inquiry, it will lead to an anomalous position. Suppose ultimately the collector would return a finding against sri J. Muralidhar, it necessarily would lead to doubt being raised as to the genuineness of the certificates of the other members of the family of his father. Like Respondent No. 8, his children would also take such a plea that the certificate issued in favour of their father was not disturbed, therefore they are also immune from any further enquiry in the matter and would always claim social status on the basis of the community certificate of their father. It will lead to conflicting certificates being in operation with respect to the members of the same family. ( 39 ) THE matter can be looked into from another angle also. It will lead to conflicting certificates being in operation with respect to the members of the same family. ( 39 ) THE matter can be looked into from another angle also. In case after enquiry by the District Collector, it is found that community certificate issued in favour of sri J. Muralidhar is false or was obtained fraudulently and is liable to be cancelled since he does not belong to the community to which he claims, there is no reason why the caste certificate of the other members of the family be taken as not genuine. If Sri J. Muralidhar is held to be not belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community, the other members of the family of his father cannot have a different claim of social status. Therefore, all the members of the family have to sink or sail together. ( 40 ) WHEN the family members of sri J. Muralidhar found that the enquiry was likely to affect J. Muralidhar or the other members of the family of his father or their progeny, they started putting hurdles, which is the reason for filing the two separate petitions by them. ( 41 ) PROVISIONS of the Act are clear which give ample authority and power to the district Collector to enquire into the correctness of the community certificate which power can be exercised by him either suo motu or on a written complaint by any person. It is only after enquiry is made by him, he can order cancellation of the certificate if he is of the opinion that the certificate is false or was obtained fraudulently. This can be done only after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making representation. Procedure for the conduct of enquiry is provided in the Rules. Submission on behalf of Sri J. Muralidhar and of his family members that the report of the Director of Tribal Welfare cannot form basis for the Collector to initiate proceedings is misconceived. Report of the Director of tribal welfare can be taken by the Collector as a material coming to his notice along with the other relevant material available on his record. Report of the Director of tribal welfare can be taken by the Collector as a material coming to his notice along with the other relevant material available on his record. On considering the report, the collector is competent to initiate proceedings and of course he will have to give an opportunity to the affected person as is envisaged under the Act and the Rules, which will also include supplying copy of the report of the Director to the person concerned in case the report is to be relied upon. The case of Sri J. Muralidhar is that despite his request copy of the report of the director was not made available to him. There is no manner of doubt that now sri J. Muralidhar, his brother (Respondent no. 8 in W. P. No. 799 of 2003) are possessed of copy of the report of the Director of Tribal welfare. In any case, while disposing of the these writ petitions we are inclined to issue directions to the respondents to supply copy of the report of the Director to sri J. Muralidhar and his brother. The matter thereafter has to be processed and proceeded with in accordance with the Act and the rules. After all, the question as to whether a person belongs to a particular caste or not has to be determined by the statutory authorities empowered to do so. It was so reiterated by the Supreme Court in its latest decision in Punit Rai v. Dinesh chaudhary. The Supreme Court held that a person in fact not belonging to Scheduled caste, if claims himself to be member thereof procuring a bogus caste certificate, would be committing fraud on the constitution and no Court of law can encourage commission of such a fraud. ( 42 ) THERE is no denying the fact that under Section 21 of the Act a community certificate issued by any authority competent to issue the same under the relevant rules or orders, before the commencement of the act shall be treated as having been issued under the provisions of the Act and such certificate cannot be cancelled except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 5 of the Act authorises the Collector to cancel the community certificate whether issued before or after commencement of the act. In the case of Sri J. Muralidhar, he has questioned G. O. Ms. Section 5 of the Act authorises the Collector to cancel the community certificate whether issued before or after commencement of the act. In the case of Sri J. Muralidhar, he has questioned G. O. Ms. No. 95 dated 19-8-1996, which was quashed in W. P. No. 9607 of 1997 on the ground that Government was not the authority to initiate the proceedings. The sole authority to initiate the proceedings is the collector, who may act either suo motu or on a written complaint. Therefore, in the writ Petition filed by Sri J. Muralidhar a direction was issued that it will be open for the Collector to proceed in accordance with law. When Collector issued notice sri J. Muralidhar filed contempt case (C. C. No. 1659 of 1998) in which an order obtained that the Collector will not look into the report of the Director of Tribal Welfare but will act on his own. This order, in our considered view, was even beyond the scope of the writ petition and is contrary to the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in kumari Madhuri Patil s case (supra ). The only ground on which Sri Muralidhar had objected to the report of the Director being looked into by the Collector was that copy of the report had not been supplied to him. There is no manner of doubt that in case the report of the Director of Tribal Welfare has to be made use of, the same can be done only after supplying a copy of the same to the affected person and not otherwise. It will be for the Scrutiny Committee and the Collector to take action in accordance with the Act and the Rules. ( 43 ) WE have already observed above that the earliest showcause notice dated 25-5-1996, which had been issued by the collector, was not questioned or challenged by Sri J. Muralidhar. Even the subsequent notices dated 27-5-2002 issued by the scrutiny Committee in accordance with the rules were also not questioned or challenged by Sri. J. Muralidhar. The same hold good. There is no manner of doubt that the Collector initiated proceedings after satisfying himself that enquiry deserves to be conducted in the case of sri J. Muralidhar. Even the subsequent notices dated 27-5-2002 issued by the scrutiny Committee in accordance with the rules were also not questioned or challenged by Sri. J. Muralidhar. The same hold good. There is no manner of doubt that the Collector initiated proceedings after satisfying himself that enquiry deserves to be conducted in the case of sri J. Muralidhar. In case enquiry has to be conducted in the case of Sri J. Muralidhar, there is no reason that why direction in the case of Respondent No. 8 cannot be issued. In such an event, other members of the family cannot object to enquiry being conducted about the genuineness of the community certificate issued in favour of sri J. Muralidhar. Thereafter, their writ petitions have neither any foundations nor any basis. ( 44 ) AS regards W. P. No. 799 of 2003 filed as PIL, we are of the view that the submissions made on behalf of Respondent no. 8 are misconceived. There is no prohibition for the Collector to probe into the genuineness of the caste certificate because if ultimately the certificate is found to be not genuine, it has the effect of depriving the genuine, Scheduled Tribe candidates. When there is material before the Collector, he is entitled to enquire into the matter. Looking at the allegations in the petition filed as PIL what we find is that ever since the report of the Director of Tribal Welfare was received by the Collector, Sri J. Muralidhar or his brothers are seriously agitating the matter by presenting letters of various authorities. The Director of Tribal Welfare submitted his report on 10-3-1996. On 12-4-1996 another letter was addressed to the Prime Minister of india, Chief Secretary of the State, Home secretary, Secretary, Tribal Welfare, government of Andhra Pradesh and the home Secretary, Government of India. This representation was followed by several representations dated 21-2-1999, 17-1-2000,16-9-2000 and 13-5-2001. When no action was taken by the authorities, the present Writ Petition was filed as PIL. ( 45 ) THERE being enough foundation to make enquiry as regards the community certificate of Sri J. Muralidhar, the same can also form a good foundation in the case of Sri J. Anand, Respondent No. 8 in w. P. No. 799 of 2003 and it will not be impermissible in such a situation to direct the collector to initiate proceedings in accordance with law against Respondent no. 8 also. 8 also. Rather it will be beneficial for him to clear his position and prove that no action is required to be taken since the caste certificate issued in his favour is genuine. His apprehension is that adverse orders are likely to be passed against him by his employer in case certificates are found to be not genuine. At this stage, such an apprehension is misconceived inasmuch as it is only after orders are passed by the collector that question will arise whether the employer should or should not take any punitive action or any other action against respondent No. 8 or against Sri J. Muralidhar. That stage has not yet reached. ( 46 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that W. P. Nos. 18757 of 2002 and 6768 of 2001 and C. C. No. 729 of 2003 are liable to be dismissed and W. P. No. 729 of 2002 deserves to be allowed. We are also of the view that the enquiry initiated by the collector pursuant to show cause notice dated 27-5-2002, which was stayed by reason of the orders passed on 4-1-2002 in c. A. No. 690 of 2002 deserves to be expedited. ( 47 ) IN result, W. P. Nos. 18757 of 2002 and 6768 of 2001 and C. C. No. 729 of 2002 are dismissed. Consequently, W. P. No. 799 of 2003 is allower with a direction to the collector to exercise his powers and enquire into the community certificate issued in favour of Respondent No. 8 after calling for the records and after affording an opportunity to Respondent No. 8 of making representation and to conduct enquiry as envisaged under the provisions of the Act and Rules. In the event of the Collector forming an opinion that the certificate is false or was obtained fraudulently he will proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In case the Collector would like to make use of the report of the Director of tribal Welfare, he shall be entitled to do so only after ensuring that a copy of the same has been duly supplied to Respondent no. 8. In case the Collector would like to make use of the report of the Director of tribal Welfare, he shall be entitled to do so only after ensuring that a copy of the same has been duly supplied to Respondent no. 8. ( 48 ) THE enquiry already initiated by the collector under the Act and the Rules against Sri J. Muralidhar, which was stayed, shall now proceed with and be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the collector. The Collector is directed to supply a copy of the report of the Director of Tribal welfare to Sri J. Muralidhar. The Collector thereafter will proceed to call for the record and complete the enquiry as envisaged under the provisions of the Act and the Rules after affording due opportunity of being heard to Sri J. Muralidhar and proceed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It is also made clear that in case petitioner in W. P. No. 18757 of 2002 or petitioner in W. P. No. 6878 of 2001 or any of the family members of Sri J. Muralidhar would like to participate in the enquiry or the said proceedings, it will be open for them to appear before the Collector on the date being fixed by us and adduce whatever evidence they would like to adduce. Collector will pass appropriate orders as regards community certificate of Respondent no. 8 in W. P. No. 799 of 2003, Sri J. Muralidhar and other members of their family. The collector will take up proceedings on 28-1-2004 and will thereafter fix his own schedule and will ensure that proceedings are concluded by June, 2004. The parties are left to bear their respective costs.