ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Marine Casual Labourer in Visakhapatnam Port Trust in the year 1980 against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, he was re-designated or promoted as Lasker. He was issued charge sheet, dated 07.01.1988, alleging that the Caste Certificate produced by him at the time of his appointment, and the attestation in that regard are found to be not genuine and he was required to explain as to why his services be not terminated. The petitioner submitted his explanation and enquiry was conducted thereafter. Based upon the findings in the enquiry, a show-cause notice dated 19.02.1990, was issued and the petitioner submitted his explanation. On a consideration of the same, the second respondent imposed punishment of removal from service against the petitioner, through proceedings, dated 16.03.1990. That order was confirmed in appeal, on 02.07.1990. 2. The petitioner filed W.P.No.1495 of 1991 before this Court challenging the order of removal. The writ petition was dismissed on 05.06.2002 holding that as long as the genuinity of the Caste Certificate was not proved, the order of removal cannot be found fault with. It was left open to the petitioner to assail the proceedings, dated 25.11.1987, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer-the first respondent stating that the Caste Certificate relied upon by the petitioner is not genuine. Hence, this writ petition challenging the proceedings, dated 25.11.1987. 3. The petitioner contends that the first respondent did not issue any notice before issuing the impugned proceedings, and in that view of the matter, it is violative of principles of natural justice. He contends that in case it has come to the notice of the first respondent that there is any defect or infirmity in the Caste Certificate, he ought to have issued notice and conducted enquiry. 4. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. 5. Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned proceedings are ex-facie illegal since the petitioner was not put on notice, before issuing the same. He contends that unilateral observations were made and the result is that the petitioner lost his employment. 6. 4. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. 5. Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned proceedings are ex-facie illegal since the petitioner was not put on notice, before issuing the same. He contends that unilateral observations were made and the result is that the petitioner lost his employment. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the first respondent and Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand submit that the necessity to issue notice to the petitioner would have arisen, if a Certificate issued by a competent authority sought is to be cancelled. They submit that when no certificate at all was issued to the petitioner, the question of issuing notice to mention that fact, does not arise. 7. The petitioner secured employment as Marine Casual Labourer against a vacancy reserved in favour of Scheduled Tribe. He produced a Caste Certificate said to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Paderu. After the petitioner was appointed, the second respondent addressed letter, dated 03.01.1987, to the first respondent with a request to verify and inform whether the Caste Certificate produced by the petitioner to the effect that he belongs to Konda Kapu is genuine or not. On receiving the same, the first respondent conducted enquiry and addressed the impugned letter, dated 25.11.1987. It reads as under: “in the reference cited, it was requested to verify the records and inform whether the caste certificate produced by Sri Adapa Bennayya, S/o.Kalyanam of Paderu Village as Konda Kapu Caste is genuine or not. Accordingly I have made discrete enquiries in the matter and my enquiry reveals that there are no Adapa families in Paderu Mandal of Paderu (V) was belong to Konda Kapu Caste. The local enquiry reveals that no person by name Adapa Bennayya, S/o.Adapa Kalyanam either side in Paderu. As such the Caste Certificate produced by the said individual is not genuine. Further the seal of the office and signature of the Officer are not genuine and they appear to be faked thing which require investigation by the Department.” 8. It is no doubt true that the first respondent did not issue any notice to the petitioner before he addressed the impugned letter. Obviously on that basis, the petitioner contends that the same is violative of principles of natural justice. It is no doubt true that the first respondent did not issue any notice to the petitioner before he addressed the impugned letter. Obviously on that basis, the petitioner contends that the same is violative of principles of natural justice. Reference is made to the order, dated 19.01.2001, passed in W.P.No.8163 of 1990 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 9. The application of principles of natural justice is firmly implanted in the administrative exercises and is settled beyond any pale of doubt that any order passed by the administrative authority in violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained in law. As a matter of fact, various Statutes and the supporting legislations incorporated this principle. Even where they are silent the Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and High Court make it mandatory. Reference to them in detail would amount to stating the opinions. 10. In this regard, a subtle distinction needs to be kept in mind. If a citizen is issued a Caste Certificate by a competent authority and at a later point of time, the very authority proposes to cancel it on coming to know that it is obtained by playing fraud or making misrepresentation, the authority would certainly be under obligation to follow the principles of natural justice, issue notice and conduct enquiry. Any deviation in this regard would lead to annulment of the proceedings. 11. Where, however, the authority has not issued any proceedings or Certificate at all and an individual has brought that into existence on his own, a different view needs to be taken. If on a request made by another agency, who acted upon such a testimonial, the authority, who is competent to issue it, replies that it has not issued any certificate at all, such communication does not partake the character of an order determining or affecting the rights of the person concerned. To put it differently, when a Certificate did not emanate from the office of the competent authority, it cannot be required to conduct enquiry or issue notice when he just states that his office did not issue it, in reply to a query. In fact, any enquiry in such cases would not only be futile and superfluous, but also would lead to begging the question. It would be difficult to frame the question, upon which, the individual concerned can be required to answer. In fact, any enquiry in such cases would not only be futile and superfluous, but also would lead to begging the question. It would be difficult to frame the question, upon which, the individual concerned can be required to answer. Therefore, principles of natural justice do not get attracted when an authority does nothing more than giving a reply to the effect that he or his office did not issue certificate or pass orders and the one brought to his notice is not genuine. 12. It is not as if the affected individuals are without any remedy, in such cases. They can institute a suit for declaring that the Certificate held by them is genuine and the burden would upon them to prove that it is genuine and in case, the defendants in such a suit fail to counter the plea of the plaintiff and other relevant facts are proved, a declaration can certainly ensue. 13. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.