ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 23 January 2015 on the file of the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee rejecting the community status claimed by the Petitioner and declaring that the Scheduled Tribe certificate obtained by him is not genuine. 2. When the Writ Petition was taken up for final disposal, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the State Level Scrutiny Committee conducted a review of the matter and recalled the impugned order dated 23 January 2015. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in view of the subsequent developments nothing survives for adjudication in the Writ Petition. 3. The Learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the State Level Scrutiny Committee conducted a detailed enquiry and arrived at a very clear finding that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu Kondareddy Community. According to the learned Senior Counsel the scrutiny committee was not correct in reviewing its earlier order without there being a specific provision. The Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the petitioner on the strength of the community certificate secured employment in Pondicherry which is earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes and as such there should be a judicial determination of his claim. 4. The Petitioner is challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The State Level Scrutiny Committee recalled its order dated 23 January 2015 and decided to hold fresh enquiry. In view of the subsequent events, there is no question of considering the correctness of the order dated 23 January 2015. 5. The order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee dated 27 September 2016, recalling the earlier order dated 23 January 2015 is taken on record. 6. The State Level Scrutiny Committee is directed to conduct the enquiry as indicated in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 and subsequently in Dayaram vs. Sudhit Batham, (2012) 1 SCC 333 and decide the claim made by the Petitioner on merits. 7. The petitioner should be given reasonable opportunity to produce materials to substantiate his contention. The State Level Scrutiny Committee is directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. 7. The petitioner should be given reasonable opportunity to produce materials to substantiate his contention. The State Level Scrutiny Committee is directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.