ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O. Ms. No. 71, Social Welfare (CV. 1) Department, dated 25.02.2019, in consonance with the notice in Rc. No. 773/2014/C4, dated 13.07.2018 along with findings of the District Level Scrutiny Committee, Guntur, without hearing the petitioner and without considering the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner before the District Level Scrutiny Committee, Guntur as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violation of the A.P. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 (for short, 'Act 1993') and the Rules made thereunder and to pass suitable orders. 2. (a) The brief case of the petitioner is that on a false report by an individual accusing that the petitioner belongs to Christian Madiga-SC community as against the social status of the petitioner Madiga Hindu and also alleging, suppressing the said fact, the petitioner once contested for the post of member of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency of Guntur Rural Mandal as SC Hindu, an enquiry was conducted. The 2nd respondent issued notice and the petitioner attended the enquiry on 15.09.2014 and sought for permission to engage a counsel. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 24796 of 2018, questioning the notice in R.C. No. 773/2014/C4, dated 13.07.2018, wherein the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed an order on 18.07.2018 giving liberty to the petitioner herein to raise all the objections, including the findings of the District Level Scrutiny Committee before the concerned authority-2nd respondent and directed that the said authority shall consider the same and pass orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (b) Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner appeared before the Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur-2nd respondent herein for enquiry. The said authority after full-fledged enquiry passed an order in proceedings R.C. No. 773/2014/C4, dated 24.11.2018, ordering cancellation of the status of the petitioner as Hindu Madiga-SC. (c) Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent on 26.12.2018. The impugned order came to be passed by the 1st respondent vide G.O. Ms. No. 71, Social Welfare (CV. 1) Department, dated 25.02.2019, confirming the order of the District Collector. (c) Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent on 26.12.2018. The impugned order came to be passed by the 1st respondent vide G.O. Ms. No. 71, Social Welfare (CV. 1) Department, dated 25.02.2019, confirming the order of the District Collector. (d) Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to submit his case to question the findings of the 2nd respondent. Further, the 1st respondent has not perused and considered the various documents filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, which are part of the record, due to which, the petitioner suffered injustice. Hence, the instant writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri. V. Sai Kumar and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, representing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Reiterating the writ petition averments, the main plank of argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that the 1st respondent/appellate authority has not considered the various documents submitted by the petitioner and the oral arguments addressed by him before the 2nd respondent in proof of the fact that he is Hindu Madiga-SC and not a Christian Madiga-SC. He would submit that he produced the school records and other connected records in this regard but the 2nd respondent neither considered nor gave a logical finding thereon except stating that with a malafide intention, the petitioner's caste was mentioned as Hindu Magida-SC in school records without there being any supporting evidence to buttress the said assumption. Learned counsel argued that the 1st respondent is concerned, except recording his observations by briefly noting the arguments of the petitioner and ultimately holding that the order of the 2nd respondent was blemish less, the 1st respondent has not given reasons for his conclusions. Thus, the submission of the counsel for petitioner is that the voluminous record produced by the petitioner was not given a proper treatment and thereby, the petitioner's right regarding his social status was jeopardised. He thus prayed to set aside the impugned order in G.O. Ms. No. 71, Social Welfare (CV. 1) Department, dated 25.02.2019, passed by the 1st respondent and remand the matter to the 1st respondent with a direction to accord an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order. 5. He thus prayed to set aside the impugned order in G.O. Ms. No. 71, Social Welfare (CV. 1) Department, dated 25.02.2019, passed by the 1st respondent and remand the matter to the 1st respondent with a direction to accord an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, on written instructions, would submit that the enquiries clearly revealed that the petitioner herein had married in accordance with the Christian Customs in a church located at Vengalayapalem Village, by following the Christian faith and this fact was confirmed during the course of enquiry before the 2nd respondent and therefore, the 2nd respondent has passed order duly cancelling his certificate issued treating him as SC-Hindu. Learned Government Pleader further argued that the said order was confirmed by the 1st respondent in the appeal and the said order suffers no infirmity or illegality. He further submitted that a fair opportunity was given to the petitioner and since there are no merits in his case, the order of the 2nd respondent was confirmed in the appeal. He, thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether the are merits in the writ petition to allow? 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the orders of both 1st and 2nd respondent. On a careful scrutiny, I find some force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner. The appellate authority in Para 7 has mentioned its observations. In sub paragraph (IV), the 1st respondent mentioned his observation thus: "IV. The appellate authority has observed that during the course of hearing of the case, the appellant submitted his arguments as per his ground in appeal petition and stated that the lower authority failed to observe that he is Hindu Madiga by birth and his school records clearly shows the same and on that score alone it can be presumed that he belongs to Schedule Caste and further stated that person who filed complaint before the lower authority failed to prove that he contested in 1995 elections with BC-C caste certificate and the said certificate is of Kolakaluri Jacob and not his certificate. On verification of the documents and the grounds of appeal and Para wise remarks as well as the other documents and material available on the record it is noticed that except the above contention nothing was placed for appreciation of the case of the appellant and further it is noticed from the record that as per the revenue enquiry and other documents it is clearly established that Sri. Kolakaluri Koteswara Rao, S/o. Nagaiah and Sri. Kolakaluri Jacob, S/o. Francis are one and the same and it is further observed that the appellant contested in the 1995 elections on a BC-C community certificate and on a SC community certificate in 2014 elections. That as per the Act 16/1993, the burden of proof lies on the appellant and it is the responsibility of the appellant to produce necessary independent evidence and documents in support of his claim. As seen from the record, the lower authority passed the order after reasonable appreciating the evidence available on record as per law which deserves no interference. Hence, it is apparent that the appeal is devoid of any merits and there is no infirmity either in the findings of the DLSC or the learned District Collector, Guntur District. That considering the above, and the material available on the record, it can be concluded that the lower authority passed the order as per law which does not deserve any interference." 8. As can be seen from the above, the contention of the petitioner is that he produced his school records before the lower authority to show that he belongs to Hindu Madiga-SC, but the lower authority has not considered the same. He also contended that the complainant failed to prove before the lower authority that the petitioner contested in 1995 elections with BC-C caste certificate and the said certificate is of Kolakaluri Jacob, but it does not belong to the petitioner. After mentioning this contention, the appellate authority stated that on verification of the documents and the grounds of appeal and para wise remarks and other documents and material available on record, it was noticed that except the above contention nothing was placed for appreciation of the appellate authority. On the other hand, as per the revenue record and other documents, it was clearly established that Sri. Kolakaluri Koteswara Rao, S/o. Nagaiah and Sri. On the other hand, as per the revenue record and other documents, it was clearly established that Sri. Kolakaluri Koteswara Rao, S/o. Nagaiah and Sri. Kolakaluri Jacob, S/o. Francis are one and the same and that the appellant contested in 1995 elections on a BC-C community caste certificate and SC community certificate in 2014 elections and the burden is on him to prove his contentions, but he failed in this regard. On such observation, the appellate authority seems to have confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent. I am unable to appreciate the finding of the 1st respondent for the main reason that except mentioning that the documents and other reports confirmed that the petitioner belongs to Christian Madiga-SC and that he contested in 1995 elections on a BC-C community certificate, the appellate authority has not pellucidly discussed the contents in those documents which weighed with him to come to such conclusion. Under law, the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings from the lower court or forum and the first appellate authority shall take into consideration the factual and legal aspects meticulously and appreciate the evidence touching the facts, and to give its finding as to whether the facts pleaded by either party are established to the satisfaction of the said authority or not. In this case, though the 1st respondent has noted down the vehement contention of the petitioner that he only belongs to Hindu SC and produced the school records to that effect, however, unfortunately, did not bestow its attention to find out whether such record is a genuine one or a fabricated one. Unless a logical finding is arrived at by meticulously weighing the oral and documentary evidence, a laconic finding bereft of the evaluation of evidence will not stand to scrutiny before the higher forum. Therefore, the order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the 1st respondent with a direction to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and after considering the documentary evidence placed before the 2nd respondent, give a finding basing on the evidence. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in G.O. Ms. No. 71, Social Welfare (CV. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in G.O. Ms. No. 71, Social Welfare (CV. 1) Department, dated 25.02.2019 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent with a direction to give notice to the parties in the appeal and after affording a personal hearing to them and on considering the evidence in right perspective, pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with the governing law and rules expeditiously but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.