The three (3) petitioners assail the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.22, Social Welfare (Department), dated 05.03.2002, whereby and whereunder, they in exercise of powers under Section 7(2) of A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for brevity, the Act), rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners against the orders of the District Collector, the second respondent herein, who by order dated 31.12.2000, cancelled the Caste Certificates issued to the petitioners as belonging to Lambada (Scheduled Tribe).

The Girijana Lambadies Brundam, Adilabad gave a complaint that the first petitioner and his two sons, petitioner Nos.2 and 3, obtained false Certificates as belonging to Lambada community though they migrated from Maharashtra. In exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Act, the second respondent constituted a District Scrutiny Committee (D.S.C.) under Rule 8 of the A.P. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (for brevity, the Rules). The said Committee under the Chairmanship of the Joint Collector, issued show cause notice to the first petitioner and conducted enquiry. A report was submitted on 15.02.2000 based on which the second respondent passed orders on 31.12.2000 cancelling the Community Certificates of the petitioners. Petitioners, aggrieved thereby, filed the appeal under Section 7(2) before the Government, who by the impugned order, dismissed the same.

A counter affidavit is filed opposing the writ petition. It is however not necessary to refer to the various averments therein as these proceedings are essentially for a Writ of Certiorari and the relevant issue is whether the impugned order is vitiated by grave error apparent on the face of the record.

The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the order of cancellation by the District Collector was based on the report of the D.S.C., a copy of which was not furnished to the petitioners and therefore, the Cancellation Order suffers from defect in law. He places reliance on M.Karunakar v State of A.P., B.C. Welfare Department1, Bhakthavathsala Sukumar v M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,2 and Duda Ramesh v State of A.P.3. He also brought to the notice of this Court of a decision of the Supreme Court in Gulzar Singh v Sub-Divisional Magistrate4.

Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Director of Tribunal Welfare v Laveti Giri5 and State of Tamil Nadu v A. Gurusamy6 and submits that when the burden of proof that they belong to Scheduled Tribe lies on the petitioners under Section 6 of the Act, the non-supply of the copy of the report of D.S.C., does not vitiate the proceedings of the District Collector. He contends that at the request of the petitioners, the District Collector again gave opportunity, but the petitioners failed to produce any evidence that they migrated to State of Andhra Pradesh before 27.07.1977 when Lambada Community was included in the list of Scheduled Tribes by an amendment made by the Parliament to the Constitution (Schedules Tribes) Order, 1950.

In Certiorari proceedings, it is axiomatic the finding of fact recorded by the decision maker is not ordinarily interfered with unless such finding is grossly perverse. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to venture adjudicating the factual dispute. But the fact remains that the order of District Collector draws sustenance and support from the report of the Chairman of the D.S.C. dated 15.02.2000. The non-furnishing of such report vitiates the entire proceedings.

In Bhakthavathsala Sukumar (supra), this court held that "when the enquiry authority relying on a document records a finding, such authority has to furnish such document to the delinquent to offer his remarks and non-supply of such copy would amount to violation o