Judgment : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent vide ROC 36520/2011/13 dated 22.03.2013 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to refer the Caste Certificate No.6357917 C.No.627/2011 dated Nil 09.2011 issued to the 2nd respondent by the Tahsildar, Hosur, to vigilance cell as per the guidelines issued by the State Government in G.O.(Ms)No.106 dated 15.10.2012 and conduct a De-Novo enquiry within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.A.D.Jagadish Chandira, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.S.P.Prabhakaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the first respondent and Ms.P.T.Asha, learned counsel representing M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates, appearing for the second respondent. Though notice was served, none appears on behalf of the third respondent. 3. The writ petition is filed by the unsuccessful candidate, challenging the order passed by the first respondent holding that the Scheduled Caste Community Certificate issued to the second respondent is genuine one. The second respondent participated in the election to the post of Village Panchayat President, by name Perandapalli Gram Panchayat President, and it was declared under the Reserved Category, namely, Scheduled Caste Community. That Community Certificate, according to the petitioner, is not genuine one and he made a complaint to the Election Commission and also to the District Collector. 4. The District Collector, based on the complaint/representation of the petitioner, called for an enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the community certificate issued to the second respondent. This is also based on a report from the third respondent Election Commission in proceedings e/f.vz;.8366/2012/Cnj/1 dated 10.12.2012. The first respondent, namely, The District Collector and Chairperson, District Level Vigilance Committee after considering the material on record passed the following order:- “ORDER: Petitioner has called for the genuineness of the Community Certificate obtained by Tmt.V.Shamala, H/o Subramani, Mornapalli Tharappu, Kothur Village, Hosur Taluk of Krishnagiri District, who was working in Panchayat President, Berandapalli. The Sub Collector, Hosur has enquired and obtained T.C. Copies, Community Certificate Copies, Statements from VAO and Village Public. The Sub Collector, Hosur has enquired and obtained T.C. Copies, Community Certificate Copies, Statements from VAO and Village Public. The documents received, and the statements obtained has proves that the individuals belonging to the Adidravidar Community which comes under scheduled Caste and on the basis of the above and on the reports received from the Revenue The Sub Collector, Hosur, it is concluded that the Adidravidar Community Certificate obtained Selvi V.Shamala, H/o Subramani, is a genuine one.” 5. The above order is under challenge primarily on the ground that the order, which confirms the genuineness of the community certificate issued to the second respondent, is based on the enquiry report submitted by the Sub Collector, Hosur. The Sub Collector, Hosur, who enquired and submitted a report is not competent authority under the relevant G.O. to make enquiry and submit a report. Petitioner specifically relies upon the G.O.(Ms.)No.106 dated 15.10.2012. A specific ground in this regard has been raised in Ground No.(B) in the writ petition which admittedly is evident from the fact that the impugned proceedings does not refer to the said G.O.(Ms.)No.106 dated 15.10.2012. Ground No.(B) in the writ petition reads as follows:- “B. It is submitted that the 1st respondent as per the G.O.(Ms)No.106 dated 15.10.2012 ought to have directed the vigilance cells formed especially for making enquiry into the genuine nature of the community certificate hence non-reference of the 2nd respondent community certificate by the 1st respondent vitiates the entire proceedings.” The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent concedes that the new G.O.(Ms.)No.106 dated 15.10.2012 has not been followed and the court may order for fresh enquiry as per law. 6. Therefore, there is an apparent error in the impugned proceedings, as the enquiry which should be conducted by the Vigilance Cell constituted in terms of G.O.(Ms.) No.106 dated 15.10.2012 has not been done. The order passed by the first respondent is in violation of the procedure prescribed under G.O.(Ms.)No.106 dated 15.10.2012. Therefore, the impugned order is bad. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to follow the procedure set out in G.O.(Ms.)No.106 dated 15.10.2012 and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. 8. Therefore, the impugned order is bad. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to follow the procedure set out in G.O.(Ms.)No.106 dated 15.10.2012 and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. 8. Needles to state that it is very improper on the part of the first respondent Committee who have totally ignored the relevant G.O.(Ms.)No.106 dated 15.10.2012 and referred to the earlier G.O.Ms.No.110 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 6.7.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.108 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 12.9.2007 which have undergone a change. Such error should be avoided. 9. The Writ Petition is allowed by way of remand as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Counsel for the second respondent states that the functioning of the second respondent as elected president should not be restrained. There is no interim order passed by this Court restraining the second respondent from functioning as elected President. Therefore, we are not inclined to state anything on this.