ORDER: The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.144, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department dated 26.12.2007 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal filed against the proceedings Rc.No.707/2001.C5 dated 4.9.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent canceling the Scheduled Tribe Konda Dora Caste certificate issued to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she is daughter of Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma. Bandi Subbanna Dora belongs to Konda Dora community, whereas her mother Neelamma belongs to Telaga community hailing from Vizianagaram District. The petitioner was admitted in Tribal Welfare Ashram School and studied in the Ashram School from 1st class to 10th class and her school record reveals that she belongs to Konda Dora Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe (ST). She was issued Community Certificate mentioning her caste as Konda Dora, which belongs to Scheduled Tribe by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gummalaxmipuram on 27.6.2000. She was selected as Teacher in the year 2001 and was working as Teacher in Primary School. While things stood thus, the President, Adivasi Vikas Parishad, Vizianagarm made a representation dated 5.1.2001, alleging that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Dora ST community. Based on the said complaint, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 28.4.2001 stating that the mother of the petitioner Smt Neelamma originally hailed from Vizianagaram District and migrated to Gummalaxmipuram village along with her child and she belongs to Telaga by caste and further stated that no legal marriage was existing between Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma. At the time of enquiry by the District Level Scrutiny Committee, the individual did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that her claim as belonging to Konda Dora Scheduled Tribe Community and as there is no legal existing marriage between Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma, however, since they lived together as wife and husband, the question of acceptance of their marriage by the Tribunal Society does not arise and hence, Konda Dora ST caste certificate bearing No.880/1999.D dated 8.10.1999 and SR.No.726/2000.B dated 27.6.2000 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gummalaxmipuram in favour of Kumari Bandi Latha D/o. Subbanna Dora deserves to be cancelled. Based on the findings of the District Level Scrutiny Committee and report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram, the District Collector and Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner to appear before him on 15.2.2006 and 24.2.2006 and 24.6.2006. The individual attended before the Collector and represented that she belongs to Konda Dora Scheduled Tribe community and Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma are her parents and there were no illegal contacts with others to her mother. In the complaint of the President of Adivasi Vikas Parishad, Vizainagaram, it is stated that the petitioner’s original mother and father are Munikoti Krishna and Saraswathi. Munikoti Krishna suffered from Leprosy and they belong to Telaga community and she left the petitioner. The petitioner obtained Konda Dora ST certificate claiming that Subbanna Dora and Neelamma are her father and mother and on the false claim that she belongs to Konda Dora ST community, she obtained admission in Ashram school and studied from 1st to 10th class and thereafter obtained teacher job. But in the enquiry, Smt Saraswathi denied the same. The petitioner also denied the same and Bandi Subbanna Dora was examined in the enquiry and stated that the petitioner is his daughter and he denied the existence of legal marriage between him and Smt Neelamma. Based on the report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee, which is based on the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Collector erroneously came to the conclusion that the petitioner obtained S.T certificate claiming her caste as Konda Dora and Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma as their parents who belong to Konda Dora community and cancelled the certificate. Questioning the cancellation of the caste Certificate dated 20.6.2000 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gummalaxmipuram, Vizianagaram District through proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 4.9.2006, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.20527 of 2006 and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 29.9.2006 stating that as per the provisions of Section 7 (2) of the Act, there is a statutory remedy of appeal against the orders of the cancellation of Caste Certificate by the competent authority i.e., Collector and District Magistrate and permitted the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of six weeks and on such appeal being filed, the appellate authority shall entertain the same and consider on its own merits and suspended the impugned order till disposal of the appeal. The petitioner preferred appeal within six weeks from that date. Pending appeal, the cancellation order of the petitioner’s community certificate was suspended. The petitioner preferred appeal to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent vide G.O.MS.No.144 dated 26.12.2007 based on the reports of the District Level Scrutiny Committee and Revenue Divisional Officer holding that the petitioner failed to produce sufficient evidence in support of her claim that she was born in the year 1979 and on verification, no such entry is found in the Birth and Death Records of Gummalaxmipuram village. The petitioner’s parents Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma were not legally married but on mere living together as husband and wife, the same cannot be considered, as Tribal society accepted them as tribal community. Since it is not a legal marriage of the parents of the petitioner Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma, the petitioner cannot claim that she belong to Konda Dora community and she is entitled for ST certificate. The appellate authority rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Collector. Being aggrieved by the impugned G.O.Rt.No.144 dated 26.12.2007, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. In W.P.M.P.No.1254/2008 an interim order was sought seeking suspension of the impugned GO. This Court, by order dated 24.1.2008 suspended the impugned GO. 4. The 3rd respondent filed Counter. 5. Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments of the writ affidavit would contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer filed two enquiry reports on 28.4.2001 and 22.2.2002 stating that the petitioner is the daughter of Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma and they belong to Konda Dora ST community. The school records and revenue records clearly shows that the petitioner belongs to Kona Dora community. The District Level Scrutiny committee submitted a report without any independent enquiry stating that the marriage between Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma was not performed even though they lived together as wife and husband and accepted by the Tribal Society and the petitioner cannot claim that she belongs to Konda Dora community. Even the record reveals that in the complaint of the President, Adivasi Vikas Parishad, Vizianagaram, they complained that the petitioner is the daughter of Munikoti Krishna and Saraswathi and they belong to Telga community. Munikoti Krishna suffered from Leprosy and Smt Saraswathi left him. Even the record reveals that in the complaint of the President, Adivasi Vikas Parishad, Vizianagaram, they complained that the petitioner is the daughter of Munikoti Krishna and Saraswathi and they belong to Telga community. Munikoti Krishna suffered from Leprosy and Smt Saraswathi left him. However, the petitioner was treated as daughter of Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma and their community is Konda Dora and the petitioner was admitted in Ashram Schools based on the ST Certificate and studied from 1st to 10th class and thereafter secured teacher job on the strength of the said ST certificate and without conducting proper enquiry as to whose daughter the petitioner is, whether petitioner is daughter of Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma or daughter of Munikoti Krishna and Saraswathi, the enquiry officer erroneously came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not the daughter of Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma. However, Smt Saraswathi in the enquiry denied that the petitioner is her daughter, whereas Bandi Subbanna Dora claimed that the petitioner is his daughter. He denied the existence of legal marriage between him and Neelamma. The petitioner studied in the Tribal Ashram School from 1st to 10th class on the basis of the certificate issued by the Mandal Revnuee Officer that the petitioner belongs to Konda Dora ST community and her school records and revenue record reveals that she belongs to ST Konda Dora community. Without conducting proper enquiry, the 2nd respondent District Collector and Magistrate only based on the hotchpotch enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram and without examining the community elders as to whether whose daughter she is came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not Bandi Subbanna Dora and cancelled the ST Konda Dora Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. 6. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Social Welfare while reiterating the averments of the counter would contend that the 2nd respondent based on the reports of the District Level Scrutiny Committee and the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the petitioners community certificate by proceedings dated 4.9.2006 holding that the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence in support of her claim and the 1st respondent appellate authority exercising his power under Sub Rule 7 of Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997 read with Section 5 (1) of A,.P. (SCs, STs & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 16/93, Konda Dora ST certificate dated 8.10.1999 and 27.6.2000 issued by the Mandal Revenue officer, Gummalaxmipuram and rejected the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to Konda Dora community on the ground that there is no valid marriage exists between Bandi Subbanna Dora belonging to Konda Dora community and Neelamma belonging to Telaga community, even though they lived together as wife and husband and though the tribal society accepted it. However, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gummalaxmipuram reported that on verification of resemblances of the petitioner and her mother Smt Saraswathi, wife of Munikoti Krishna are one and the same and that originally complaint was that she is the daugther of Munikoti Krishna and Saraswathi. There is much weight of evidence to show that the petitioner may not be the daughter of Bandi Subbanna Dora, a Tribal and also the Birth and Death Records of Gummalaxmipuram village do not show that the petitioner’s name is recorded in the said records for the period she claimed. Hence, the 1st respondent after giving opportunity and notice to the petitioner and based on the record rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent. 7. Hence, the 1st respondent after giving opportunity and notice to the petitioner and based on the record rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent. 7. In the facts and circumstances and considering the submission of the counsel and perusal of the record, this Court found that the petitioner was born in the year 1979 and she was admitted in the Tribal Ashram School on the strength of the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer that she belong to Kond Dora community, a Scheduled Tribe and the fact of issuing ST Konda Dora community certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the fact that the petitioner obtained admission in Trribal Welfare Ashram School on the strength of the ST certificate and studied from 1st class to 10th class is not in dispute. The community certificate shows that she is the daughter of Bandi Subbanna Dora. Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma lived together as wife and husband. The same was accepted by the Tribal Society. Thereafter, the petitioner pursued her studies and selected as Teacher and now she was married. Thereafter, an enquiry was initiated based on the complaint given by the President, Adivasi Vikas Pasrishad, Vizianagarm complaining that the petitioner is the daughter of Munikoti Krishna and Saraswathi who belong to Telaga community but they failed to prove in the enquiry that the petitioner is the daughter of the said Saraswathi and Munaikoti Krishna, who suffered from Leprosy and died. Saraswathi is married and living separately. In the enquiry, Saraswathi denied that the petitioner is her daughter, whereas Bandi Subbanna Dora accepted that the petitioner is his daughter born to his wife Neelamma. The said controversy is not properly resolved in the enquiry whether the petitioner is the daughter of Neelamma or Saraswathi. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was admitted in Tribal Welfare Ashram School and studied from 1st to 10th class based on the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer that the petitioner belongs to Konda Dora community belonging to Scheduled Tribe. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was admitted in Tribal Welfare Ashram School and studied from 1st to 10th class based on the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer that the petitioner belongs to Konda Dora community belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The community certificate given to the petitioner stating that she belongs to Konda Dora community, a Scheduled Tribe on 8.10.1999 and 27.6.2000 and cancelling the same based on the hotchpotch enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Level Scrutiny Committee and without application of mind by the District Collector, which was confirmed by the 1st respondent appellate authority stating that the petitioner could not able to produce sufficient evidence in support of her evidence that she belongs to Konda Dora Community is erroneous on the ground that since Bandi Subbanna Dora and Neelamma lived together as wife and husband without any legal marriage, the same cannot disentitle the petitioner to claim a community certificate belonging to Konda Dora community, a Scheduled Tribe, as she was born and brought up as the daughter of Banid Subbanna Dora in the Tribal society. The same cannot be denied. The petitioner claim ST community certificate as the daughter of Bandi Subbanna Dora, who belongs to Konda Dora community. Even the 1st respondent appears to have obtained a report of Mandal Revenue Officer, Gummalaxmipuram and the said report state that resemblance of the petitioner and Smt Saraswathi, wife of Munikoti Krishna, who died suffering from Leprosy are one and the same and the petitioner may not be daughter of Bandi Subbanna Dora, a tribal. In the light of the contradicting enquiry reports, the benefit goes to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner happened to be grown as Orphan and studied in Tribal Welfare Ashram School and she obtained teacher job based on the community certificate the same cannot be denied by cancelling her caste certificate of Konda Dora ST community based on the complaint of the President, Adivasi Vikas Parishad, who failed to produce any evidence to prove that the petitioner is not the daughter of Bandi Subbanna Dora. The authorities have also not conducted proper enquiry. The authorities have also not conducted proper enquiry. The petitioner also filed WPMP.No.2 of 2017 to receive the representation submitted by Sri Peddi Savaraiah dated 14.11.2002 of ZPTC, Gummalaxmpuram, Vizianagaram District addressed to Joint Collector, Vizainagarm and letter dated 20.2.2017 of Sri A. Simhachalam, District President of A.P. Girijana Abhyudaya Sangam, Vizianagaram addressed to the Project Officer, ITDA, Parvathipuram, whereunder it is stated that the petitioner is the daughter of Bandi Subbanna Dora and she belongs to Konda Dora (Scheduled Tribe) community, but the said representations were also not considered. In view of the same, both the impugned G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 26.12.2007 issued by the 1st respondent and impugned proceedings dated 4.9.2006 issued by the 2nd respondent are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.