Disposed

Rajan S/O Shanthinath Huibatte v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2020WA/100434/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal against an order dismissing a petition challenging a reservation notification, the High Court held that adjudication on the notification's validity was academic as the appellant's tenure had expired. The court dismissed it to allay apprehensions regarding adverse effects on pending criminal proceedings, noting that judicial observations would not influence criminal courts.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of without a substantive ruling, noting the challenge was academic as the post had expired.

Rajan S/O Shanthinath Huibatte Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100434/2015 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI.RAJAN S/O SHANTHINATH HULBATEE, AGE: 51 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO.88, R.C.NAGAR, II STAGE, ANGOL, BELGAVI.

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI.R.M.KULKARNI, ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶15

REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶16

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEECHI,

¶17

BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR, BELGAVI.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2013 IN W.P.NO.30944/2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This writ appeal is directed against the order of

¶26

the learned single Judge dated 25.02.2013 passed in W.P.No.30944/2008.

¶27

The appellant/petitioner had sought for

¶28

quashing of the notification dated 16.10.1995 as far as Note (III) appended to Category-B to the extent of excluding the person whose spouse is assessed to sales tax, from availing the benefit of reservation under Category-B of the said notification. It is contended that, appellant had applied for issue of caste certificate and the Tahasildar, Belagavi has issued the same on 17.09.2007 certifying that the appellant belongs to Jain Digambar caste which was classified as Category-B in the Government Order dated 16.10.1995. The Tahasildar, Belagavi had issued notice cancelling the caste certificate of the appellant which was the subject matter of W.P.No.30185/2008 and the same was allowed and

¶29

¶30

remanded on 25.07.2008. The Tahasildar on 18.12.2008 passed an order cancelling the caste certificate by placing reliance on the note in Government Order dated 16.10.1995. In the circumstances, the appellant had preferred W.P.No.30944/2008 challenging the notification dated 16.10.1995 as far as disentitlement made regarding reservation of Category-B in including “his spouse is assessed to sales tax”. The learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. Hence, the present writ appeal.

¶31

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the note in the Government notification dated 16.10.1995 is applicable only to the offices of Mayor/Deputy Mayor of City Corporations, President/Vice-President of Town Municipal Councils/City Municipal Councils/Town Panchayaths not to the Corporator/Councillors. It is submitted that a clarification was issued by the Deputy

¶32

¶33

Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada dated 21.02.2013 to the extent that the certificate to the candidates for contesting in B category as Corporator/Councillor of the urban local bodies does not arise in view of the notification dated 16.10.1995 restricting to the seats and offices of Mayor/Deputy Mayor of City Corporations, President/Vice-President of Town Municipal Councils/City Municipal Councils/Town Panchayaths only. The learned counsel argued that subsequent to Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 coming into force with effect from 11.03.2005, the reference made to the sales tax in the notification dated 16.10.1995 would render Clause III of the Note

¶34

to the said notification redundant. No appropriate amendment being brought to the said notification dated 16.10.1995 in so far as sales tax is concerned, reliance placed by the Tahasildar on the said notification is wholly unjustifiable. It is submitted that pursuant to withdrawal of the caste certificate

¶35

¶36

by the competent authority, the unsuccessful candidates filed police complaint in C.C.No.876/2008 against the petitioner and the matter is pending before the JMFC-III, Belagavi. He submits that dismissal of the writ petition would have an adverse effect on the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant on the alleged charges levelled as far as securing the caste certificate.

¶37

The learned Government Advocate for the respondents would submit that the validity of the notification dated 16.10.1995 was challenged before this Court and the learned single Judge in W.P.No.12571/2016 and connected matter (D.D. 21.06.2016) has upheld the notification dismissing the writ petitions. The period of tenure to the office of Corporator/Councillor held by the appellant having come to an end, the challenge made to the Government Order dated 16.10.1995 being academic in nature, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶38

¶39

We have given our anxious consideration to

¶40

the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for

¶41

the parties and perused the material on record.

¶42

The Challenge to the Government Order

¶43

dated 16.10.1995 as far as Note-III to the said notification relates to the spouse assessed to the sales tax. Merely for the reason that Karnataka Value Added Tax Act has come into force on 11.03.2005, the assessment of the spouse of the applicant to such

¶44

tax would not disentitle reservation in terms of the note to the Government Order dated 16.10.1995 prima facie cannot be held to be tenable. The validity of the notification could be examined if there is any infringement of fundamental rights of the appellant

¶45

or lack of competency of the Government in issuing such order/circular/notification vis-à-vis the cause of action of the parties concerned. In the present set of facts, the adjudication upon that issue would not arise since the post of Corporator/Councillor to

¶46

¶47

which the appellant opted has come to an end by efflux of time. Any adjudication on this issue could only be academic. It is the apprehension of the appellant that withdrawal of the caste certificate and the confirmation of the same in the third round by the Tahasildar would adversely affect his rights in the criminal proceedings. To allay the apprehension of the appellant, it is suffice to observe that any of the observations made in the writ proceedings would not influence the criminal Court in coming to a decision in accordance with law.

¶48

With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

MBS/-

Rajan S/O Shanthinath Huibatte v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan S/O Shanthinath Huibatte v. the 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

The Commissioner Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S.Drivers Colony and Nagarika Vs Urban Development Authority

Sri.Parashuram S/O Yellappa Koti @ Kyoti Vs the Karnataka Institute of

Shivayogappa Nimbanna Anaji, Vs Karnataka Public Service Commission

Sri.Maruti Vs the Management of

The Management of Lok Shikshana Vs Shridhar Raghavendra Kanchi