HEMA, J.

1. Can a community certificate issued by the competent authority be cancelled, under Section 11 of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) on the mere finding that the person in whose favour the certificate was issued does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community? What are the factors to be looked into by the scrutiny committee before cancelling a false community certificate under Section 11 of the Act? These are the main questions that arise for consideration in this appeal in the following factual matrix.

2. Appellants, five in number, filed this appeal under Section 12(3) of the Act challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee which is as follows:

"The committee therefore orders to cancel all Scheduled Tribe community certificates issued to the claimants and their siblings and the caste entries in their school records corrected as Paniyakkal OEC".

3. The proceedings against appellants were triggered by a representation dated 06.09.1994 made by the Secretary, Girijan Sevak Samithi, Agali, Attappadi to Government. As per the allegations in the representation, Sri.Sankarankutty and his children, who are appellants 2 and 3, secured community certificate showing that they belong to 'Paniyan' (Scheduled Tribe) through unlawful means and that on the strength of such certificates, they are enjoying various benefits from Government which are meant only for members of Scheduled Tribes.

4. As per the representation, a request was also made to cancel the appointment of fourth appellant, who was working as a teacher in Adivasi School and to recover all unmerited favours which they enjoyed from Government and also to take prosecution steps against them. The Government forwarded the above representation to District Collector who enquired into the matter and found that the entries in the service register of the fourth appellant is shown as 'Paniyan', Scheduled Tribe.

5. It was also found by the District Collector that her brothers also enjoyed benefits of Scheduled Tribe, by declaring that they belong to Hindu Paniyan Scheduled Tribe community. The fourth appellant's father Sri.Sankarankutty belongs to 'Barber' community and her mother Santha belongs to 'Vilakkithala Nair' community. The District Collector reported the matter to the Director, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Thiruvananthapuram (4th respondent) for a detailed enquiry on the tradition, customs and practices of the individuals.

6. The Government referred the case to the Vigilance Cell of KIRTADS ('Expert Agency' under the Act) for an enquiry and after the enquiry, the 'Expert Agency' found that the facts stated by appellants regarding the real caste status to the respective departments are contrary to truth. According to vigilance report, appellants do not belong to Paniyan Scheduled Tribe community but they are members of 'Paniyanakkal' community.

7. The matter was hence placed by the Government before the Scrutiny Committee The Scrutiny Committee issued show cause notices to the appellants. They filed replies. The scrutiny committee found that none of the claimants have trades of 'Paniyan' community. Relying upon the documents furnished by KIRTADS, the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that appellants do not belong to Paniyan community (Scheduled Tribe) as claimed by them, but they belong to Paniyanakkal community which is included in OEC list. The Scrutiny Committee was ordered to cancel all Scheduled Tribe community certificates issued to Sri.Sankarankutty and his children. It was also ordered that the caste entries made in their school records be corrected as "Paniyanakkal OEC". The said order is challenged in this appeal.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the records. Sri.M.P.Krishnan Nair, learned counsel for appellants strenuously argued that Section 11 of the Act requires the Scrutiny Committee to find out whet