Judgment : 1. The sole petitioner seeks for a mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 23-3-1992 issued by the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Addatheegala, East Godavari District, the proceedings dated 26-6-2000 issued by the 2nd respondent-District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada and G.O.Ms.No.37, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 27-3-2002 as illegal and for an order to set aside the same with consequential relief. 2. The petitioner claims that he is a Konda Kapu by community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. He claims that his fore-fathers hail from Dutcharti Village, Addatheegala Mandal. His father was employed in the Railways. The father of the petitioner ultimately retired as Assistant Law Officer. His school records and official records showed him as belonging to Konda Kapu Community. 3. The Caste Certificate obtained by the father of the petitioner that he belonged to Konda Kapu dated 14-3-1979 was cancelled by the District Collector considering that the father of the petitioner was not a Konda Kapu by community. He preferred W.P.No.2444 of 1982. Through order dated 19-01-1985, the orders of the District Collector were cancelled. Further, the father of the petitioner was declared by the Court to be belonging to Konda Kapu Community. A writ appeal with delay was filed by the Government. In W.A.(SR).No.33723 of 1986, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the limitation petition through orders dated 12-6-1986. Orders in W.P.No.2444 of 1982 continued to be in force. A special leave petition was filed questioning the orders in W.A.(SR).No.33723 of 1986, which was numbered as Civil Appeal 188 of 1994. The Supreme Court remitted the case through orders dated 10-01-1994 directing the Division Bench to dispose of the writ appeal on merits after allowing the limitation petition. The case came up before another Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench through orders dated 23-8-1995, dismissed the appeal. Thus, the orders in W.P.No.2444 of 1982 became final. 4. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner joined as a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 24-11-1989. He was directed to produce his latest Caste Certificate. The Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Addatheegala was not inclined to pass any orders on the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner consequently filed W.P.No.7941 of 1990. On 22-10-1991, the writ petition was disposed of directing the MRO to issue necessary Certificate. He was directed to produce his latest Caste Certificate. The Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Addatheegala was not inclined to pass any orders on the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner consequently filed W.P.No.7941 of 1990. On 22-10-1991, the writ petition was disposed of directing the MRO to issue necessary Certificate. On 23-3-1992, the MRO rejected the request of the petitioner for a Caste Certificate. The District Collector, in his turn, rejected the request through proceedings dated 26-6-2000. Government issued G.O.Ms.No.37 accordingly on 27-3-2002. All the 3 proceedings are questioned through this writ petition. 5. Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC, for short) did not hold any enquiry under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (the Rules, for short). One of the primary contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that when the father of the petitioner belongs to Konda Kapu Community, the petitioner automatically belongs to Konda Kapu Community and that he is entitled to the Caste Certificate. 6. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the District Collector passed orders on 26-6-2000 without applying his mind, blindly accepting the report of the MRO. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare placed reliance upon S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ( AIR 1990 SC 1984 )where with reference to the principles of natural justice in respect of the decision of an Administrative authority, the Supreme Court observed that reasons must be recorded by the authority for the order except in cases where the requirement of giving reasons is dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication. It was further observed: “35. … … … In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decisions of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such art order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.” On the basis of this decision, it is contended that the appellate authority need not pass any order assigning separate reasons when the appellate authority was agreeing with the order of the primary authority. I do not wish to go into this question at this stage where the issue can be disposed of through other circumstances. 7. It is contended that in W.P.No.2444 of 1982, it was the belated action of the Railway authorities, which prompted the Court to declare the community of the father of the petitioner as Konda Kapu. Indeed, it was recorded that it was too late for the Railway Administration to treat the father of the petitioner as belonging to a Non Scheduled Tribe Community. The learned Government Pleader submitted that it is only the District Collector, who can issue a declaration that a person belongs to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes by virtue of the powers vested through the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (the Act, for short) and that the Court has no authority to pronounce such a declaration. The ultimate order of the Court in the common order in W.P.Nos.994 of 1980 and 2444 and 5464 of 1982 is to treat the father of the petitioner as a person of Konda Kapu Community belonging to Scheduled Tribes. It would appear to be the contention of the learned Government Pleader that there was no declaration as such by the Court that the father of the petitioner belonged to Konda Kapu by community. 8. It is contended by the learned Government Pelader that both the MRO as well as the District Collector passed orders after due consideration of the entire material available before them. 8. It is contended by the learned Government Pelader that both the MRO as well as the District Collector passed orders after due consideration of the entire material available before them. The MRO, Addatheegala considered that the petitioner belongs to Telaga Community, which is a Non-Tribal Community. He did not even refer to the order in common judgment in W.P.Nso.994 of 1980, 2444 and 5464 of 1982 in which the father of the petitioner was declared/considered to be a Konda Kapu belonging to Tribal Community. He merely referred to an Affidavit filed by an elder of Dutcharti Village that the father of the petitioner was a Konda Kapu by community and rejected the Affidavit. I therefore do not agree with the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the MRO has examined the issue in its entirety. 9. So far as the District Collector is concerned, a detailed reasoned order was pronounced by the District Collector. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that a sweeping order was passed by the District Collector cannot be accepted. The District Collector, in fact, considered the orders of the Court in W.P.No.2444 of 1982 and batch. However, it was observed by the learned District Collector that the Court held that the father of the petitioner was a Konda Kapu by community in view of the length of service put in by the father of the petitioner in the Railway Department and on humanitarian grounds. If that were the intention of the High Court, the High Court could very well have held that the question of the community of the father of the petitioner would not be considered at that length of time and that what was recognized by the Department earlier should hold good so far as the employment of the father of the petitioner was concerned. However, the Court held that the father of the petitioner was a Konda Kapu by community. 10. I do not agree with the finding of the District Collector that the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2444 of 1982 and batch was passed on humanitarian grounds. Community Certificate cannot be ordered on humanitarian grounds. Unless the Court concluded that the father of the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe, such an order would not have been passed. I do not agree with the finding of the District Collector that the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2444 of 1982 and batch was passed on humanitarian grounds. Community Certificate cannot be ordered on humanitarian grounds. Unless the Court concluded that the father of the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe, such an order would not have been passed. Thus, I consider that the Court passed orders in W.P.No.2444 of 1982 and batch that the father of the petitioner was a Konda Kapu by community. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also drew my attention to the orders in W.A.No.473 of 1989 passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 30-11-1988. Ramanujulu Naidu, J., speaking for the Division Bench, examined at length the origin of Kapu and Konda Kapu. However, it is not relevant for the purpose of the present enquiry. So far as the present case is concerned, it is evident that the father of the petitioner was a Konda Kapu by community. Whether the petitioner is a Konda Kapu and consequently is entitled to Community Certificate accordingly is the question. 12. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance upon RAMESHBHAI DABHAI NAIKA v. STATE OF GUJARAT (2012) 3 SCC 400 ) in support of his claim. The applicant in that case was born to a Scheduled Tribe mother and a Non-Tribal father. The Caste Certificate that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe was subsequently cancelled on the ground that his father was a Non-Tribal. The Supreme Court observed that the caste of the offspring is essentially a question of fact and cannot be determined in complete disregard of attending facts of the case. 13. It may be pointed out at the outset that in W.S.V. Satyanarayana v. Director of Tribal Welfare ( 1996 (1) ALT 170 ), the Court took the view that the social status of a child goes with the social status of the father but not with that of the mother. In Government of A.P. v. Pagadala Khali Kanthi ( 2010 (3) ALT 663 (D.B.)), a Division Bench of this Court held that the offspring of a Tribal man and a Non-Tribal woman takes the social status of a Tribal Community as the community of the father. Thus, the child taking the community of the father is the normal rule. In Government of A.P. v. Pagadala Khali Kanthi ( 2010 (3) ALT 663 (D.B.)), a Division Bench of this Court held that the offspring of a Tribal man and a Non-Tribal woman takes the social status of a Tribal Community as the community of the father. Thus, the child taking the community of the father is the normal rule. In RAMESHBHAI DHABHAI NAIKA (2 supra), the Supreme Court dealt with an exception where the Supreme Court considered that the child can even take the community of the mother. The Supreme Court never considered that taking the community of the father is not the rule. It merely observed that the caste of the offspring is essentially a question of fact. 14. In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner was brought up as a Telaga child nor is there any evidence to show that the social status of the child is Telaga, which is a Non-Tribal Community. Where admittedly the father of the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe as a Konda Kapu by community, I am afraid that Government cannot cancel the Caste Certificate. The petitioner is entitled to Caste Certificate by virtue of the community of his father per se unless there are other circumstances showing that the petitioner did not belong to the community of the father. Such evidence has not been produced by anybody. 15. Inter alia, the learned Government Pleader referred to Section 6 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Rules which place burden upon a person to produce necessary evidence in respect of his social status. The petitioner produced the common judgment of the High Court (W.P.No.2444 of 1982 and batch) where the Court held that the father of the petitioner belonged to Konda Kapu Community. Contrary evidence has not been produced by the State. I therefore unhesitatingly accept the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Konda Kapu Community. The orders of the MRO as well as the District Collector and the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.37 consequently are incorrect and are accordingly set aside. The petitioner is found to be belonging to Konda Kapu Community. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. I therefore unhesitatingly accept the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Konda Kapu Community. The orders of the MRO as well as the District Collector and the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.37 consequently are incorrect and are accordingly set aside. The petitioner is found to be belonging to Konda Kapu Community. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue Caste Certificate of the petitioner within 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the effect that the petitioner is a Konda Kapu by community. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.