Judgment : 1. The petitioner was issued a community certificate by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudivada, the 4th respondent herein on 14-07-1980 to the effect that he belongs to Konda Kapu community, which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe (ST). The petitioner was not employed against any vacancy, reserved for ST community. It appears that he undertakes various social activities. The petitioner is said to have studied M.B.A Course, and obtained loan from the State Finance Corporation, for construction of a factory at Gudivada. On 23-03-1997, the then Member of Legislative Assembly of Gudivada, submitted a representation to the Government, with a request to conduct enquiry, in relation to the social status of the petitioner. A copy of the same was marked to the District Collector, Krishna, the 2nd respondent herein, who in turn directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, the 3rd respondent, to cause a preliminary enquiry. In the enquiry so conducted, it emerged that though the petitioner and his family pleaded that they have migrated from East-Godavari District, they have not submitted any material, in proof thereof. 2. After the completion of preliminary enquiry, the 2nd respondent referred the matter to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘the Committee’), which is constituted under the A.P. (Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’), and the Rules made thereunder. The Committee issued notice to the petitioner, and ultimately submitted a report, stating that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Kapu community. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 21-10-1999, holding that the petitioner does not belong to ST community, and directing that the caste certificate dated 13-07-1980, issued to the petitioner, be cancelled. 3. Initially, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, as directed by this Court, he filed an appeal before the Government, the 1st respondent herein, under Section 7(2) of the Act. 4. The appeal was dismissed, through orders in G.O.Ms.No.73, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 25-08-2001. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 5. The petitioner contends that he was not given adequate opportunity before the Committee, and that the 2nd respondent passed the order, contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. 4. The appeal was dismissed, through orders in G.O.Ms.No.73, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 25-08-2001. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 5. The petitioner contends that he was not given adequate opportunity before the Committee, and that the 2nd respondent passed the order, contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. He further contends that the 1st respondent was not entitled to hear the appeal, since it was on a direction issued by them, that the proceedings were initiated by the 2nd respondent. 6. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules was meticulously followed, in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. According to them, the Committee has independently examined the matter by taking into account, the facts, pleaded by the petitioner and those, borne out by record. They further state that the petitioner has failed to prove that he or his family are migrated from East-Godavari District, and that he did not even reveal the name of his so-called native place. 7. Heard Sri B. Sree Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. 8. The petitioner claimed the status of ST, by stating that he is a Konda Kapu. The said community is prevalent in the agency tracts of East-Godavari and Visakhapatnam Districts. Admittedly, the petitioner is a native of Gudivada, of Krishna District. His father was also residing at that place. Though it was pleaded that his father came from a place in East-Godavari District, no evidence, in support thereof, was adduced. 9. The caste certificates, in respect of the tribes, which are prevalent in certain areas, mentioned in the relevant orders, issued under the corresponding provisions of law; are to be issued by the competent authority of that particular place. In case such an authority has issued certificate, and the person, who is certified to be ST, or his lineal descendants migrate to other places, there would be a possibility for the authorities, in the non-scheduled areas, to issue certificates, based on the earlier certification by the authority in the scheduled area. A caste certificate pertaining to ST, which is recognized only in a specified areas, cannot be issued, for the first time, by an officer, in the nonscheduled areas. A caste certificate pertaining to ST, which is recognized only in a specified areas, cannot be issued, for the first time, by an officer, in the nonscheduled areas. The reason is that he would not be in a position to verify the relevant facts. Firstly, he has no authority and power to go to the concerned area in the agency tract, and verify the genuinity of the claim of the person, who had applied for the certificate. Secondly, he cannot issue certificate, as regards a caste, which is not recognized, as prevalent in his area of operation. If the case of the petitioner is examined in this background, it emerges that he was issued a caste certificate, for the first time in the year 1980, by the Tahsildar, Gudivada, without there being any earlier certification by a competent authority from the scheduled area. 10. The Committee is constituted under the Act and the Rules. It is conferred with the power to cause enquiry into the genuinity or otherwise of the caste certificates. The petitioner appeared on 31-08-1998 before the Committee, constituted for the Krishna District. His deposition was to the effect that his forefathers were uneducated, his father died about 20 years back, and that his father told him, that they belong to Konda Kapu community. He stated that he has no knowledge of his forefathers, or his relations. He was not even able to mention the name of his native village, much less, did he examine anyone, in proof of his claim, that he belongs to Konda Kapu community. The Committee was left with no alternative, except to hold that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Kapu community. The 2nd respondent took the same into account and passed the impugned order. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court, in Panda Rajyalakshmi v District Collector, Srikakulam 2002 (4) ALT 98 . In that case, the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer was taken as the basis, and the petitioner therein was required to submit explanation, with reference to that. It was found that, such a course is not permissible in law. The facts in the instant case are different. The Committee proceeded as though, it has no material against the petitioner, before it, and required him to substantiate his claim. It was found that, such a course is not permissible in law. The facts in the instant case are different. The Committee proceeded as though, it has no material against the petitioner, before it, and required him to substantiate his claim. The petitioner miserably failed to prove that he belongs to Konda Kapu community. 12. The 2nd respondent has approached the matter from the correct perspective, and the Appellate Authority has also examined the matter on proper lines. Even before this Court, the petitioner is not able to establish his claim, that he belongs to Konda Kapu community. 13. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.