Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to issue the consolidated mark statement, Diploma Certificate, Course Completion Certificate and the Conduct Certificate to the petitioner. .3. It has been stated by the petitioner that he belongs to `Kurmans a community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community. After completing his S.S.L.C. the petitioner was selected to undergo Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, in the second respondent College, in the year 2002, under the Scheduled Tribe community quota. While he was undergoing the Diploma course, the petitioner had been issued with the show cause notice, dated 18. 2004, by the first respondent, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his admission to the Diploma Course in the second respondent College should not be cancelled, since it was found that the Community Certificate submitted by the petitioner is a bogus one. The said show cause notice had been sent to the petitioner based on the letter of the third respondent. However, the third respondent had not conducted any enquiry, with regard to the genuineness of the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner. Further, in the show cause notice, dated 18. 2004, it has not been stated that the third respondent had cancelled the Community Certificate of the petitioner. .4. In fact, the community of the petitioners father, as well as his grand father has been shown as `Kurman community in the relevant records available at the office of the Sub Registrar, Sholingar. Even though a detailed explanation had been submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent had cancelled his admission to the Diploma course, vide his proceedings, dated 9. 2004, which had been served on the petitioner, on 29. 2004. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.27582 of 2004, challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 9. 2004. By an order of a division Bench of this Court, dated 4. 2008, the writ petition had been allowed, since the impugned order of the first respondent had been based solely on the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 7. 2004. 2004. By an order of a division Bench of this Court, dated 4. 2008, the writ petition had been allowed, since the impugned order of the first respondent had been based solely on the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 7. 2004. Since the District Collector was not the competent authority to go into the genuineness of the Community Certificate the first respondent could not have relied on the order of the District Collector, dated 7. 2004, while passing the impugned order, dated 9. 2004. However, it had been observed that it would be open to the concerned authorities, empowered to do so, to go into the question of the genuineness of the certificate produced by the petitioner, in accordance with law. However, the authorities concerned had not taken any steps to verify the genuineness of the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner. It has been further stated that when the petitioner had approached the first respondent requesting him to issue the Provisional Certificate, the Consolidated Mark Statement, the Diploma Certificate, the Course Completion Certificate, the Conduct Certificate and the Transfer Certificate, he had refused to do so. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted, based on the instructions received from the respondents, that the genuineness of the Community Certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of his admission to the Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, in the second respondent College, had not been duly verified by the Committee constituted for the said purpose. Unless the procedure is completed the certificates sought for by the petitioner could not be issued. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is clear that in spite of liberty having been given to the authorities concerned to verify the genuineness of the Community Certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of his admission to the Diploma course in the second respondent College, by an order of the Division Bench of this Court, made in W.P.No.27582 of 2004, dated 4. 2008, no steps have been taken in that regard, till date. 2008, no steps have been taken in that regard, till date. Since the petitioner had completed his course and as it has not been proved that the Community Certificate produced by the petitioner had been obtained by him by misrepresentation or fraud it cannot be held that the petitioner is guilty of producing a bogus Community Certificate. It was open to the authorities concerned to verify the genuineness of the Community Certificate produced by the petitioner, at the time of his admission to the Diploma Course in the second respondent College. Further, since the petitioner had completed the Diploma Course, it would not be proper for the authorities concerned to retain the certificates sought for by the petitioner. Further, an affidavit of undertaking has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, which is as follows: "4. I further submit that, I have filed the above writ petition praying this Honble Court to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Director of Technical Education, the 1st respondent herein to issue all the Certificates such s 1. Consolidated Mark Statement, 2. Diploma certificate, 3. Course Completion Certificate, and 4.Conduct Certificate and for an interim direction to direct him to issue the 1.Provisional Certificate and 2. Transfer Certificate pending disposal of the writ petition. 5.The above writ petition came up for admission before this Honble court on 4. 2009 and this Honble Court was pleased to direct the learned Government Advocate to get instructions and adjourned the case to 4. 2009. After the summer vacation the above writ petition came up for consideration on 16. 2009, and is adjourned to today i.e. 26. 2009 for my undertaking and declaration that, since the issue involved in this writ petition is pertaining to the community certificate and this Honble Court in the earlier round of litigation, while allowing the writ petition in W.P.No.27582 of 2004, on 4. 2009, and is adjourned to today i.e. 26. 2009 for my undertaking and declaration that, since the issue involved in this writ petition is pertaining to the community certificate and this Honble Court in the earlier round of litigation, while allowing the writ petition in W.P.No.27582 of 2004, on 4. 2008 was pleased to observe that, teh observations made in his order shall not stand int eh way of the respondent state to go into the genuineness of the certificate produced by the petitioner in accordance with law, and in the event the certificate produced by me is found to be not genuine, I will not claim the benefit from out of the said Community certificate for my future education or employment and on the other hand if the certificate is found to be genuine I can enjoy the benefits. In these circumstances, I hereby undertake and declare that, I will not claim the benefit from out of the said Community Certificate for my future education or employment in the event the certificate is found to be not genuine and on the other hand if the certificate is found to be genuine I can enjoy the benefits. This undertaking and declaration may be recorded and the respondents may be directed to issue the certificates as prayed for in the writ petition and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may dem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice." 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and in view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to surrender the original Community Certificate to the third respondent, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it would be open to the petitioner to apply for a fresh Community Certificate, which would be issued to him by the authorities concerned, after making the necessary enquiries, in accordance with law. However, if the original Community Certificate is in the possession of the first respondent, as claimed by the petitioner, the first respondent shall send the same to the third respondent for necessary action, in accordance with law. However, if the original Community Certificate is in the possession of the first respondent, as claimed by the petitioner, the first respondent shall send the same to the third respondent for necessary action, in accordance with law. On the surrendering of the original Community Certificate, the first respondent shall issue the certificates of the petitioner, as requested by him in the present writ petition, within a period of two weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P is closed.