Disposed

Kum Madeeha Banu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2013WP/36249/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought caste certificate. Petitioner rejected request. Petitioner granted liberty to file appeal to Assistant Commissioner. Writ petition disposed of granting liberty to pursue statutory remedy.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to file appeal before Assistant Commissioner within two weeks under Section 4B of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1990.

Kum Madeeha Banu Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.36249/2013 (GM-CC)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kum. Madeeha Banu D/o Sri Lakshmanappa A B Aged 18 years RML Nagara Shimoga Ward Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk and District-577201 … Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri P Karunakara, Adv.)

¶10

And :

¶11

State of Karnataka Revenue Department Vidhana Soudha Bangalore – 560 001 Rep. By its Secretary to Government

¶12

The Tahasildhar Shimoga Taluk Shimoga District-577 201 … Respondents

¶13

(By Sri C Jagadish, GA for R.1 & 2. )

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to direct the respondents to issue caste certificate to the petitioner.

¶15

¶16

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in 'B' group, this day, the Court made the following :

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue

¶19

of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue caste certificate to the petitioner.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that she is the daughter of Sri A.V.Lakshmanappa, who belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner in order to pursue her education is seeking for issue of Caste Certificate. By the endorsement dated 10.05.2013, the Tahsildar has rejected the request of the petitioner. Though the said endorsement has not been assailed in the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking for issue of mandamus.

¶21

The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the said endorsement dated 10.05.2013 would have to avail the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 4B of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation on appointments,

¶22

¶23

etc.,) Act, 1990. In that view, the petitioner is granted liberty to file such appeal before the Assistant Commissioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter consider the appeal without reference to delay, if any and dispose of the appeal on its merits as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four weeks from the date on which the appeal is filed.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶25

Sd/JUDGE

¶26

akc/bms

Kum Madeeha Banu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum Madeeha Banu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.B. Nanaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

The Central Education Society (R) Vs the Secretary

Smt.Leelamba W/O Late P N Krishnaswamy Vs the Chief Manager

Sri Mir Azmathulla Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf

E Ramaswamy Vs the Commissioner

Sri Vinayaka Bhaktha S/O Prakash Bhaktha Vs Sri Laksmish Bhandary S/O Chandrahas Bhandary