Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No. 4475 of 2001 dated 12. 2004. 2. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant sought to misdirect the Court as if the issue has been covered by another Division Bench Judgment and tried to slip away as done before the learned Single Judge as if the issue has been covered by another Division Bench Judgment. After going through the judgment of the learned single Judge, this Court cautioned the counsel for the appellant that if the facts of the case with which reliance has been made by the counsel for the appellant are not similar to the facts of the present case, this Court would view the matter seriously and impose a heavy cost. Even thereafter, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant stuck his own position that the matter is covered by the other Division Bench Judgment. In order to see whether the issue is covered by the said judgment, we are of the view that necessary facts which are required for the disposal of the case has to be stated. Even prior to that we make it clear that we are not oblivious of the facts that the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patils case ( AIR 1995 SC 94 ) has given certain direction. Pursuant to the direction given by the Supreme Court in the Madhuri Patils case certain committee has been constituted drawing one of the members from anthropology department so as to go into the correctness of the claim made by the persons like appellant whether they belong to scheduled tribe community. So far as the facts of the present case is concerned, it is not so. The issue before the learned single Judge was whether the certificate produced by the appellant was issued by the Tahsildar as claimed by the appellant. It has been found on facts that it is not so but the certificate itself is a bogus certificate. When such being the factual position, we are not able to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the issue is covered by the Division Bench Judgment made in W.P.No. 15869 of 1991 dated 20.2.1996. It has been found on facts that it is not so but the certificate itself is a bogus certificate. When such being the factual position, we are not able to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the issue is covered by the Division Bench Judgment made in W.P.No. 15869 of 1991 dated 20.2.1996. In order to place the anguish of the learned single Judge, we are of the view that it is appropriate to extract the few paragraphs of the judgment of the learned single Judge. "5. In the instant case, the petitioner having obtained a community certificate from a person who was not holding the office of the Tahsildar-Taluk Executive Magistrate, Pudukottai, but from a person who was working as a Tahsildar Kalal (Excise) (Incharge) had committed fraud by entering into the service of the second respondent based on such bogus community certificate. Not stopping with that the petitioner had approached this Court based on the bogus community certificate dated 2. 1986 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the said proceedings of the first respondent dated 27. 2000 committing purgery in this regard. 8. 1. Even though the matter was taken up for hearing on 11. 2004, 21. 2004, 21. 2004, 2. 2004, 2. 2004 and 2. 2004 and the petitioner was given a very fair and reasonable opportunity to rectify his mistake, the petitioner, it appears had not realised the seriousness behind it. On the other hand, an attempt was made to perpetually tinker the issue and finally the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and had also made an endorsement to that effect. 8. 2. Under such circumstances, since the first respondent in his proceedings dated 27. 2000, clarified that the community certificate relied upon by the petitioner was not genuine, the issue is not as to the status of the petitioner, but whether the petitioner can rely upon the community certificate which is verified to be bogus. 8. 2. Under such circumstances, since the first respondent in his proceedings dated 27. 2000, clarified that the community certificate relied upon by the petitioner was not genuine, the issue is not as to the status of the petitioner, but whether the petitioner can rely upon the community certificate which is verified to be bogus. Therefore, while rejecting the request of the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition, suffice it to permit the second respondent to proceed with the disciplinary action against the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders on the same, of course after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself agreeing to co-operate with the enquiry." 3. From the above extracted portion of the order of the learned single Judge, It is manifestly clear that the issue involved is not one of genuineness of the Community with which the appellant belongs to but the very genuineness of the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar. The learned single Judge having found that the person viz., S.Ayyasamy, who is stated to have issued the certificate was never working as a Tahsildar in the capacity as found in the certificate has categorically come to the conclusion that the appellant/writ petitioner played fraud by producing a bogus certificate stated to be issued by a Tahsildar of Excise Department, which is also found to be false. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not only played fraud on the Government by producing created certificate but also perpetrated the same illegality before this Court and before the learned single Judge, who has taken the issue very seriously and the same calculated fraud has been played before this Division Bench also. 4. Hence, this Court is of the view that this sort of playing fraud on the Court should not be allowed to be perpetrated. In spite of the caution made to the learned Counsel for the appellant that if the Court is not satisfied with the argument that the issue is covered by the Division Bench Judgment, then the Court would impose heavy cost by pointing out it would be more than Rs.50,000/- , the learned counsel sought to mis-direct the Court by relying upon the said Judgment. As this Court is of the opinion that the learned counsel for the appellant even before this Court tried to play fraud in the writ appeal, we are constrained to dismiss the writ appeal with cost of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-which has to be paid by the appellant within ten days from today, otherwise the District Collector, Pudukkottai is directed to recover the same from the appellant as recovery of land revenue and report the same on the re-opening day. Consequently, the connected W.A.M.P is closed. No costs. Post the matter on 6. 2007.