Judgment :- M. Sathyanarayanan, J. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated .12.2005 passed by the first respondent. 2. Heard Mr.P.Jagadeesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ilango, learned Special Government Pleader. 3. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Hindu Sholaga Community which is a Scheduled Tribe Community and he issued with a Community Certificate dated 17.04.1986 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Namakkal stating that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community. 4. The petitioner joined as a Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai and on some complaint against him regarding his community status, an enquiry was conducted. The third respondent based on the said enquiry, had cancelled the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner vide its order dated 10. 1991. 5. The petitioner challenging the order passed by the third respondent in cancelling his Community Certificate, has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.425 of 1995 and this Court by order dated 17. 2001 has allowed the said writ petition and directed the respondents therein to furnish a copy of the enquiry report of the third respondent to the petitioner and further directed the District Vigilance Committee to proceed further and complete the enquiry within a period of three months. 6. It is stated by the petitioner that after the order passed in the said writ petition, the first respondent issued a notice dated 111. 2005 through his employer calling upon him to attend the enquiry on 12. 2005. The petitioner was waiting to appear before the enquiry committee. However, he was not enquired. A clerk working in the office of the District Level Committee asked the petitioner to hand over the documents available with him and he also took the statement of the petitioner and his mother and told him that necessary orders would be passed. According to the petitioner no enquiry was conducted by the District Level Committee. 7. After some time, the fourth respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him as to why appropriate action should not be initiated against him on the ground that the first respondent committee has passed orders during December 2005, cancelling his Community Certificate. 8. 7. After some time, the fourth respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him as to why appropriate action should not be initiated against him on the ground that the first respondent committee has passed orders during December 2005, cancelling his Community Certificate. 8. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Namakkal District Vigilance and Supervising Committee dated December 2005 refers to the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal dated 2. 1999 and according to the writ petitioner, the said report has not been furnished to him and no enquiry has been conducted at all as per law. 9. Mr. P. Jagadeesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner apart from inviting our attention to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition also referred to the impugned order passed by the first respondent. 10. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the first respondent committee had placed reliance upon the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal dated 2. 1999 and also the statements given by the petitioners mother, Village Administrative Officer, Kalappanaickenpatti and the general public. 11. Mr. K. Ilango, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that in pursuant to the order of remand passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.425 of 1995, the first respondent committee has conducted an enquiry affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter passed the impugned order and it is sustainable in law and the same does not warrant any interference. 12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. 13. Though the first respondent committee had placed reliance upon the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal dated 2. 1999 and the statements of petitioners mother, Village Administrative Officer and general public, copies of none of those documents were furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner was deprived of fair opportunity to put-forth his case. Therefore, it is just, necessary and proper to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to furnish to the petitioner the report of Revenue Divisional Officer dated 2. 1999, and the statements of witnesses recorded during enquiry. We hold that the impugned order passed by the first respondent per-se in violation of principles of natural justice and hence it is liable to be quashed. 14. 1999, and the statements of witnesses recorded during enquiry. We hold that the impugned order passed by the first respondent per-se in violation of principles of natural justice and hence it is liable to be quashed. 14. The writ petition is allowed and the order of the District Level Committee is set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for a decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order from the Registry. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2007 is closed.