Judgment : The petitioner in the present case has challenged the order of the District Vigilance Committee of Sivagangai District dated 19.5.2006, wherein the community certificate was granted to him dated 14.6.1995 was cancelled. 2. Heard the arguments of Mr. Vellaiswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Chellammal, Senior Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents. 3. The only ground on which community certificate has come to be cancelled is by placing reliance on the Government letter dated 19.9.2000 in which it was stated that the scheduled caste Christians converted into Hinduism cannot be granted Community Certificate as Hindu Scheduled Castes and they are not eligible to come under the Presidential Order. The said letter issued by the State Government came to be challenged before this Court before a Division Bench of this Court and the judgment of this Court is reported in Prof. I. Elangovan v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Chief Secretary to Government, Chennai and Another (2007) 3 MLJ 309. 4. The basis on which the said circular came to be issued was to place on record the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in S. Sweegaradoss v. Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India AIR 1996 SC 1182 : (1996) 3 SCC 100 . In that decision the Supreme Court has held that conversion from other religion to Hinduism cannot be considered as Scheduled castes as per the presidential order. However, the Division Bench in its decision (supra) after referring to the earlier orders of the Supreme Court in C.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajagopal and Others AIR 1976 SC 939 : (1976) 1 SCC 863 and in the Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur and Others v. Y. Mohan Rao AIR 1976 SC 1904 : (1976) 3 SCC 411 and held that when the Government wants to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court they should refer to all the earlier decisions and cannot be made in the light of one decision. In the light of the same a direction was given to the State Government to issue fresh order following all the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. 5. Therefore, the order passed by the District Vigilance committee which is impugned in the Writ petition basing its decision on the Government Letter dated 19.9.2000 will stand set aside. In the light of the same a direction was given to the State Government to issue fresh order following all the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. 5. Therefore, the order passed by the District Vigilance committee which is impugned in the Writ petition basing its decision on the Government Letter dated 19.9.2000 will stand set aside. The Supreme Court decisions which have been referred to in the Division Bench order of this Court, clearly states that the question of community status has to be determined in terms of each case and there cannot be an uniform application of any principle. 6. In the present case the only ground on which, the petitioners community-certificate was cancelled was that there was re-conversion to Hinduism from Christianity will be a disqualification. The fact that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Pallar community was not disputed. In fact the Tahsildar of Manamadurai has certified that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Pallar Community and the said certificate cannot be cancelled. Inspite of the same, it is unfortunate that the second respondents should pass such an impugned order. 7. Inspite of the fact that a similar order was passed by them dated 14.6.1995 which was subject to challenge in W.P. No. 6596 of 2005 when there is an interim stay and the present order came to be passed stating that the said that Writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. This Court has verified the said contention and found that the earlier W.P is still pending. In that W.P. 6596/05, an interim stay was granted on 25.7.2005, which is still in force. 8. The District Committee, therefore has unnecessarily passed another order which had forced the petitioner, to tile the present writ petition. Therefore, the second respondent had unnecessarily dragged the petitioner and caused monetary loss to him. As this writ petition being allowed, the District Collector. Sivagangai, is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost to the petitioner. 9. In the result the writ petition is allowed with costs quantified as Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only). The second respondent is directed to restore the community certificate to the petitioner and the authorities are directed to treat it for all purpose and consequently connected M.P.No.1 of 2006 is closed. There is no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.