JUDGMENT 1. The orders of the District Collector, Chittoor, in Roc.No.C3/228/99, dated 30-8-2000, cancelling the Caste Certificate obtained by the petitioner are sought to be set aside through this Writ of certiorari. At the time of the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was on deputation with the 4th respondent-Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD, for short). Consequently, the 4th respondent was also arrayed as one of the respondents. Subsequently, her deputation period was over and the petitioner stood repatriated to her parent Department. Consequently, the 4th respondent is merely a formal party. 2. The father of the petitioner, by name Alfred, was a Hindu belonging to Adi Andhra Community. It is one of the recognized Scheduled Castes. Alfred married Smt. Sundari, mother of the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner is a Brahmin by community. The parents of the petitioner fell apart and started to live separately. Since the time of the estrangement of the parents of the petitioner, she has been living with her mother. However, the school certificates did not record the social status of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the Cooperaive Department. In 1989, the petitioner sought for a social status certificate that she belonged to Scheduled Castes. The Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Renigunta, issued Caste Certificate on 12-9-1990 that the petitioner belonged to Adi Andhra Community, which is a Scheduled Caste. The particulars were also entered in her Service Record. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for Group-I Services. On 20-7-1994, the petitioner was provisionally selected as Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. The Commissioner and Director of Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad addressed the Deputy Director of Social Welfare, Chittoor to enquire into the social status of the petitioner. The Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Tirupati made necessary enquiries and submitted a report on 08-5-1995 that the petitioner belonged to Adi Andhra Community. After the confirmation of the social status of the petitioner, she was appointed as Assistant Director in the Department of Survey, Settlement and Land Records at Chittoor, through orders vide G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 03-02-1995. On 14-01-2000, the petitioner was appointed as Estate Officer of the 4th respondent-TTD on deputation. 5. A batch of 8 persons submitted a written representation to the 1st respondent-District Collector, Chittoor that the petitioner did not belong to Adi Andhra Community and that she obtained a false Certificate. On 14-01-2000, the petitioner was appointed as Estate Officer of the 4th respondent-TTD on deputation. 5. A batch of 8 persons submitted a written representation to the 1st respondent-District Collector, Chittoor that the petitioner did not belong to Adi Andhra Community and that she obtained a false Certificate. They sought for justice to Scheduled Castes’ persons. It would appear that the District Collector directed the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Tirupathi to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit a report. The RDO conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 13-5-2000 to the effect that the petitioner obtained Caste Certificate fraudulently. On the basis of the report of the RDO, the 1st respondent-District Collector referred the matter to the 3rd respondent-District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC), headed by the Joint Collector. A Show Cause Notice was issued by the 3rd respondent-DLSC to the petitioner to explain why her Caste Certificate should not be cancelled. The petitioner appeared before the DLSC on 19-7-2000. However, the DLSC submitted a report to the 1st respondent-District Collector that the petitioner was a Christian Adi Andhra. Consequently, the impugned order was passed cancelling the Caste Certificate by the 1st respondent-District Collector. Hence the writ petition. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the burden of proof lies upon the person who claims to be belonged to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (the Act, for short) and under Rule 6 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) and that the petitioner failed to establish that she belongs to Scheduled Castes. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the very enquiry against the petitioner and the consequent orders of the District Collector are vitiated as the same are passed without according opportunity to the petitioner to establish her case and that the respondents violated the principles of natural justice in the process of cancelling the Caste Certificate of the petitioner. It may be recalled that the RDO conducted enquiry regarding the social status of the petitioner. It may be recalled that the RDO conducted enquiry regarding the social status of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was not notified about the enquiry and no information was called from the petitioner by the RDO to determine whether she belonged to Scheduled Castes or otherwise. The RDO merely conducted enquiry without notifying the petitioner and submitted a report. However, when the enquiry conducted by the RDO was only a preliminary enquiry to determine whether prima facie grounds exist to go into the question of the Caste Certificate of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot complain that enquiry was conducted behind her back as the Caste Certificate of the petitioner was not cancelled consequent upon the report of the RDO. 8. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Show Cause Notice issued by the 3rd respondent is very vague. In the Notice under Form VI, the petitioner was informed that a complaint had been received alleging that she obtained a Scheduled Caste Community Certificate from the MRO fraudulently and that she consequently was directed to attend the enquiry at the chambers of the Joint Collector, Chittoor, with necessary documentation in support of her community claim. It would appear that K.Nagaraja, brother of Alfred (father of the petitioner), was described as Christian in SSLC school record maintained by the Zilla Parishad High School, Renigunta. It would also appear that it is one of the basis on which the RDO concluded that the petitioner was a Christian. The grouse of the petitioner is that in the Show Cause Notice, these details had not been furnished. As rightly submitted by the learned Government Pelader, Form VI of the Rules prescribes the form of the Show Cause Notice. The 3rd respondent-DLSC is bound to issue Show Cause Notice in terms of Form VI. Such a Notice had been issued. I therefore consider that such a Notice by the Joint Collector/DLSC cannot be questioned on the ground that the same is violative of principles of natural justice. 9. The petitioner also contended that non-supply of copy of the report of the RDO is violative of the principles of natural justice. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner did not aver that the report of the RDO was not furnished. 9. The petitioner also contended that non-supply of copy of the report of the RDO is violative of the principles of natural justice. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner did not aver that the report of the RDO was not furnished. He admitted that the RDO did not accord any opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her case before the RDO. The learned Government Pleader submitted that neither the Act nor the Rules contemplates enquiry by the RDO and that in practice, the District Collector generally asks either the RDO or the MRO to enquire and submit a report regarding the social status of a disputed person and that if the report discloses that the social status of the concerned person was wrongly recorded in the Certificate, such a case would be referred to DLSC for its enquiry. His claim is that the report of the RDO was more a preliminary enquiry where opportunity need not be granted and non-according of opportunity in a preliminary enquiry is not a violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Regarding the enquiry before the DLSC, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner attended the enquiry on 19-7-2000 along with her mother and paternal uncle Nagaraja and that the Joint Collector refused to accord any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce any evidence, so much so, the conclusion of the DLSC that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste is a conclusion reached without according opportunity to the petitioner. The respondents 1 to 3 denied the allegations of the petitioner and contended that opportunity was accorded to the petitioner to let in her evidence. The learned Government Pleaded contended that the enquiry was conducted for about 3 hours and that it is incorrect to state that opportunity was not accorded to the petitioner. In the absence of evidence that opportunity was not accorded to the petitioner by the DLSC, I do not agree that the DLSC reached the conclusion without according opportunity to the petitioner. I consider that the petitioner failed to prove her contention in this regard. The claim of the petitioner that she was not accorded opportunity to put forth her case is liable to be rejected. 11. I consider that the petitioner failed to prove her contention in this regard. The claim of the petitioner that she was not accorded opportunity to put forth her case is liable to be rejected. 11. The petitioner placed reliance upon S.C. Railway vs. B.Veera Raju ( 1991 (3) A.L.T. 252 ), Jadhav Rekoba v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ( 2009 (2) ALD 296 ), Panda Rajyalaksmi v. District Collector, Srikakulam ( 2002 (3) ALD 589 ) and K.Suraj Singh v. Collector and District Magistrate, Kadapa ( 2011 (6) ALD 193 ). In all these cases, the Court uniformly held that reasonable opportunity must be given to the petitioner failing which, principles of natural justice would stand violated and that non-furnishing of a copy would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner failed to prove that a copy of the RDO and a report of the DLSC were not furnished to her. Consequently, these decisions do not have any bearing upon the merits of this writ petition. Further, the very report of the District Collector is elaborate. Consequently, the contention of the petitioner that reasonable opportunity was not given to her and that consequently the very impugned order is liable to be set aside cannot be accepted. 12. The admitted facts are that the SSLC Certificate of Alfred, father of the petitioner, shows that Alfred was a Hindu belonging to Adi Andhra Community whereas the school record of K.Nagaraja, brother of Alfred, described him as Adi Andhra Christian. Smt. Sundari, mother of the petitioner, is a Brahmin. The parents of the petitioner became separated during the childhood of the petitioner. The petitioner was under the care and custody of her mother. These facts are not in dispute. On the basis of these facts, the petitioner contended that she belongs to Scheduled Caste whereas the District Collector considers that the petitioner is a Christian and consequently does not belong to Scheduled Caste. 13. The learned Government Pleaded contended that reasonable opportunity was accorded to the petitioner to put forth her case and that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. 13. The learned Government Pleaded contended that reasonable opportunity was accorded to the petitioner to put forth her case and that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. In STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. A.GURUSAMY ((1997) SCC 542) relied upon by him, the Supreme Court observed that opportunity to be provided to a person in determination of the question whether he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or otherwise need not be as in the circumstances of a suit and that it is sufficient if the principle of audi alteram partem is not violated. This contention need not be considered where I have already noticed that the petitioner failed to show that reasonable opportunity was not granted to her. 14. The learned Government Pleader further placed reliance upon RAMESHBHAI DABHAI NAIKA v. STATE OF GUJARAT ( (2012) 3 SCC 400 ) with reference to the caste of a person in inter-caste marriages. The Supreme Court noticed:- “In an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal there may be a presumption that the child has the caste of the father. This presumption may be stronger in the case where in the inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and non-tribal the husband belongs to a forward caste. But by no means the presumption is conclusive or irrebuttable and it is open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. By virtue of being the son of a forward caste father he did not have any advantageous start in life but on the contrary suffered the deprivations, indignities, humilities and handicaps like any other member of the community to which his/her mother belonged. Additionally, that he was always treated as a member of the community to which her mother belonged not only by that community but by the people outside the community as well.” 15. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner does not take the community of her father automatically and that as she lived with her Brahmin mother when her parents became estranged, she cannot claim that she is a Hindu belonging to Adi Andhra Community. In the cited case, the mother belonged to Scheduled Tribe while the father belonged to a Forward Caste. In the cited case, the mother belonged to Scheduled Tribe while the father belonged to a Forward Caste. The Supreme Court referred to the general rule that a child takes the community of the father and carved out an exception that in the overall circumstances of the case, a child may nevertheless be considered to take the community of the mother belonging to Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, there is no dispute that Alfred, father of the petitioner, belonged to Scheduled Caste. Indeed, his brother is a Christian. When natural brothers themselves could belong to separate religions altogether, it is unjust to consider the petitioner to be belonging to a Forward Caste on the basis of the community of the mother where admittedly the father belonged to Scheduled Caste. In my considered view, the child takes the community of the father unless the exceptions are established. Merely because the petitioner was brought up by the Brahmin mother, I am afraid that the petitioner does not take the community of the mother. She continues to hold the community of the father. 16. The learned Government Pleaded contended the decision of DLSC is final and cannot be interfered with unless the same is perverse. While admitting on the one hand that the father of the petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste, treating the petitioner as belonging to Forward Caste itself is a perverse finding which deserves to be interfered with. 17. Inter alia, the learned Government Pleader also contended that the order of the District Collector is appealable under the Act and that a writ petition without exhausting the remedy of appeal is not maintainable. Where the impugned order was passed in 2000, it may not be proper to ask the petitioner to go and avail the appeal remedy at this length of time. Further, where the petitioner alleged that principles of natural justice are violated, a writ petition automatically lies, albeit the contention of the petitioner is not accepting. In any view of the matter, it is not a fit case at this stage to direct the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal. This writ petition deserves to be disposed of on merits. 18. The petitioner is the daughter of Alfred, a Hindu belonging to Adi Andhra. Indeed, the petitioner was brought up by her mother, Sundari, who is a Brahmin. This writ petition deserves to be disposed of on merits. 18. The petitioner is the daughter of Alfred, a Hindu belonging to Adi Andhra. Indeed, the petitioner was brought up by her mother, Sundari, who is a Brahmin. However, no exceptional circumstances are carved out to consider that the petitioner would take the community of her mother. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the petitioner takes the community of her father. The petitioner, therefore, is liable to be considered to be a Hindu Adi Andhra belonging to Scheduled Caste. 19. For various reasons set out, I consider that the finding of the DLSC and the consequent impugned order of the District Collector are perverse and are liable to be set aside. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30-8-2000 cancelling the Caste Certificate of the petitioner is set aside. No costs.