( 1 ) WRIT petitioners, prayed for the issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to and connected with the proceedings of the third respondent in Ref. (B2)9385/93 dated 18. 3. 1997 and quash the same and pass suitable orders.

( 2 ) THE third respondent-District collector by the aforesaid impugned order had ultimately arrived at a conclusion after recording certain reasons that the writ petitioners, belong to Adi Andhra by Caste and Christian by religion, who come under bc-C category but not Valmiki (ST) as claimed by them and hence in exercise of the powers conferred on him as per Section 5 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and bcs) Regulation of Issue of Community certificates Act of 1993, cancelled Valmiki (S. T.) Community Certificate obtained by them on different occasions from the tahsildar, Rampachodavaram Mandal and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maredumilli. The said order is assailed on several grounds.

( 3 ) SRI D. V. Sitharama Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners, would contend that the 3rd respondent did not offer reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and the very enquiry is vitiated for the violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel also would maintain that though the 3rd respondent was the Competent Authority, even prior to the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and BCs) regulation of Issue of Community certificates Act of 1993 (for brevity the act of 1993 ) coming into force, the fact remains that the impugned order was made in exercise of the power under section 5 of the Act of 1993, even prior to the Act coming into force which cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also had drawn the attention of this Court to Abhoy Pada Saha v. Sudhir kumar, AIR 1967 SC 115, and would contend that relevancy of surname would be very limited in an enquiry in relation to the issuance of Caste Certificate or cancellation thereof. The learned Counsel for the petitioners had taken this Court through the reasons which had been recorded and commented that the reasons contained are totally unsustainable. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, while elaborating his submissions, had pointed to the instructions of the Government of India relating to the representation of SC, STs and Services and also to the guidelines specified by the third respondent, in this regard. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and would contend that inasmuch as the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed and in the matter of this nature, the petitioners need not be driven to the remedy, if any, available for them to file an appeal or a revision, as the case may be, before the Government.

( 4 ) ON the contrary, the learned government Pleader for Social Welfare would contend that the mere fact that in the impugned order, Section 5 (1) of the Act of 1993 had been referred to would not alter the situation in any way since even prior to the Act of 1993 coming into force, the 3rd respondent was the Competent authority to pass the impugned order.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners also had drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court in w. A. No. 267 of 2003 and would contend that even in such a case, the petitioners have a right to maintain revision under section 8 of the Act of 1993 and hence, liberty may be given to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority.

( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare also had taken this court through the impugned order and had pointed out that in the light of the reasons recorded, this is not a case for interference and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 7 ) HEARD the Counsel.

( 8 ) THE father of the writ pet