This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings R.Dis.C5/257/M/1999, dated 25-12-2007 of respondent No.1 and G.O.Ms.No.187, Social Welfare (CV.1) Department, dated 26-9-2008 issued by respondent No.2.

2. In the view this court proposes to take, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. It will suffice to note that the petitioner obtained a community certificate showing him as belonging to S.C. (Mala) and secured employment in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short "the Act") and the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (for short "the Rules"), made thereunder. The case was referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short "the Committee") under Rule 8 of the Rules. After holding the enquiry, the Committee has submitted its report, on the basis of which respondent No.1 has issued proceedings in R.Dis.C5/ 257/M/1999 dated 25-12-2007, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to use the caste of his mother and has accordingly cancelled the community certificate held by him. The appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 having been rejected vide G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 26-9-2008, he filed the present Writ Petition questioning these two orders.

3. At the hearing Dr. A.Raghu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of respondent No.1, as confirmed in appeal by respondent No.2, suffers from patent violation of principles of natural justice and also the procedure prescribed by Section 5 of the Act. He has submitted that neither a copy of the Committee's report was furnished to the petitioner nor he was given any notice by respondent No. 1 to explain his case before the impugned order was passed.

4. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare who produced the relevant record, while fairly conceding that no notice was given to the petition by respondent No.1 before passing the impugned order, however submitted that in the face of the clear admissions made by the petitioner in his statement recorded by the Committee, there was no necessity of issuing a notice by respondent No.1. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that it would be a useless formality if a notice is given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

5. Section 5 of the Act empowers the District Collector to cancel the false community certificate obtained by any person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, either by exercising suo motu power or on a written complaint made by any person. This provision, however, expressly postulates giving an opportunity of making a representation, to the person concerned. Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act provided for constitution of a Scrutiny Committee at the District level for every District and lays down the procedure for the Committee to hold an enquiry and submit a report to the istrict Collector. While it is not in dispute that the Committee has given the petitioner an opportunity of participating in the enquiry, on receipt of the report, respondent No.1-District Collector has not given him any notice. In my opinion, the respondents cannot whittle-down the statutory mandate, which requires an opportunity of making a representation to be afforded to the person concerned, against whom the action for cancellation of the community certificate is contemplated. Even under Rule 9(7) of the Rules, on receipt of the Committee's report the District Collector shall decide whether the certificate holder is genuine or fraudulent. The phrase "decide" connotes a decision making process by the District Collector and not the unilateral conclusion on the bas