Quashed

Shri. Shankarappa Nagappa Alur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Feb 2020WP/100021/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order by the Tahsildar canceling the petitioner's caste certificate. The High Court held that the 1990 Act did not empower the Tahsildar to cancel the certificate after the DCVC refused a validity certificate while an appeal was pending.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.12.2017 (No. MSC/CR/31/2017-18) passed by the 7th Respondent-Tahsildar canceling the petitioner's caste certificate is quashed.

Shri. Shankarappa Nagappa Alur Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.100021/2018 (GM-CC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI. SHANKARAPPA NAGAPPA ALUR AGE:58 YEARS,

¶8

OCC: SECTION SUPERINTENDENT IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERITENDENT OF POLICE, R/O:ALUR, NOW RESIDING AT NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT, DIST:BAGALKOT

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE & SMT. PALLAVI S PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU 01

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NO.2, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-01

¶14

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, D.C.R.E. TECHNICAL EDUCATION BHAVAN, PALACE ROAD

¶15

¶16

BENGALURU-01

¶17

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NORTHERN RANGE BELAGAVI

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN, DIST LEVEL CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, ZILLA ADALITA BHAVAN, BAGALKOT, DIST:BAGALKOT

¶19

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, D.C.R.E, BELAGAVI RANGE, BELAGAVI, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶20

THE TAHASILDAR BAGALKOT TALUK, DIST:BAGALKOT

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. C JAGADISH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R7)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.MSC/CR/31/2017-2018 DATED:18.12.2017 PASSED BY THE 7^TH RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.12.2017 bearing No. MSC/CR/31/2017-18, vide Annexure-D, by which the caste certificate issued to the petitioner dated 21.6.1978 as Hindu Kolidor has been cancelled.

¶28

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as SDA on 17.12.1979 in the Department of Treasury at Badami. Thereafter, he appeared for KPSC Exam and was appointed as SDA in the Police Department. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Kolidor community which is classified as Schedule Tribe and accordingly, he obtained caste certificate from the Tahsildar, Bagalkote on 21.6.1978. As the petitioner’s caste certificate was cancelled by the Tahsildar, Bagalkote by order dated 27.5.2016, the petitioner approached this Court in WP No.108369/2016. This Court by order dated

¶29

¶30

21.11.2016 quashed the order of cancellation, giving liberty to the respondents therein to initiate the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶31

Thereafter, the petitioner’s caste certificate was referred to the District Caste Verification Committee (for short, ‘DCVC’). The DCVC by its proceedings dated 17.12.2016, after enquiry, held that the petitioner belongs to Ambigera community which is classified as Category-1. Accordingly, the DCVC refused to issue the validity certificate. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an Appeal No.11/2017 under Section 4(D) of the Karnataka SC/ST & OBC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.), 1990 (for short, ‘1990 Act’) before the Director for Scheduled Tribe Welfare and Appellate Authority. The said appeal is pending consideration. In the meanwhile, the 7^th respondent-Tahsildar passed an order at Annexure-D canceling the caste certificate issued to the petitioner on 21.06.1978 referring to the proceedings of the DCVC and letter of DCRE. Aggrieved

¶32

¶33

by the said order of the Tahsildar, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned special counsel for the respondents.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no provision which empowers the Tahsildar to pass an order of canceling the caste certificate issued on 21.06.1978, once the DCVC refused to issue the validity certificate. Moreover, when the order passed by the DCVC challenged in the appeal which is pending for consideration, the Tahsildar could not have passed the impugned order. As such, he prays for allowing the writ petition by quashing the order of the 7^th respondent-Tahsildar, dated 18.12.2017.

¶36

Per contra, learned special counsel

¶37

appearing for the respondents would submit that the order passed by the Tahsildar at Annexure-D is only a consequential order in pursuance to the order passed

¶38

¶39

by the DCVC at Annexure-B. It is his submission that Annexure-B is implemented by the Tahsildar by passing the impugned order at Annexure-D. From a reading of Annexure-D, it is clear that the order is passed in pursuance to the proceedings of DCVC referred to at Sl.No.1 in the said order. Hence, he justifies the order passed by the 7^th respondent-Tahsildar. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶40

It is not in dispute that the caste certificate

¶41

of the petitioner was referred to the DCVC for issuance of validity certificate. The DCVC after enquiry held that the petitioner belongs to Ambigera community which is classified as Category-1. As the petitioner failed to prove his caste i.e. Kolidor community, the DCVC refused to issue the validity certificate. Against which, the petitioner filed an Appeal No.11/2017 which is said to be pending consideration. In the meanwhile, the 7^th respondent-Tahsildar passed the impugned order on 18.12.2017. Once the DCVC refused to issue the

¶42

¶43

validity certificate on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove his caste which is claimed by him, again there is no provision in the 1990 Act to pass further order by the Tahsildar.

¶44

No provision which enables the Tahsildar to

¶45

pass such order is brought to my notice. Section 4A of the 1990 Act lays down that the Tahsildar shall issue a caste certificate in respect of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or other backward classes. Section 4C of the 1990 Act speaks of constitution of Caste Verification Committees for each district for verification of Caste Certificates issued under Section 4-A. Section 4-C(ii) states that the Caste Verification Committee may after holding such inquiry

¶46

as it deems fit within 30 days from the date of application either grant a validity certificate in a prescribed form or reject the application. Section 4D provides for appeal against the order of the Caste Verification Committee passed under Section 4C.

¶47

¶48

Section 5-A provides for penalties for obtaining false caste certificate or income and caste certificate. Rules made under the said Act called the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.,) Rules, 1992 stipulates the procedure for verification of caste status and issue of validity certificate. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1992 provides for constitution of Caste Verification Committee for each district which consists of the Deputy Commissioner of the District who shall be the Chairman, the Deputy Secretary (Administration) of the Zilla Panchayat, the Tahsildar of Taluk and the District Social Welfare Office who shall be the Member Secretary. Rule 7 provides for issuance or otherwise of the validity certificate. Rule 7(A) provides consequence of the rejection of validity certificate. Act or Rule would not provide power to the Tahsildar to pass consequential order such as impugned in this writ petition. But, in this case when the validity certificate is

¶49

¶50

refused by the Committee, order of cancellation has no consequences. The appeal of the petitioner is also pending against the refusal of the validity certificate. For the reasons stated above, Annexure-D, bearing No.

¶51

MSC/CR/31/2017-18, dated 18.12.2017 is quashed.

¶52

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

JTR

Shri. Shankarappa Nagappa Alur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Shankarappa Nagappa Alur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Jayaram Shetty Vs Nawab S/O Gousemohiddin Chavadi

Arjun S/O Satba Lohar Vs the State of Karnataka

Padmavati Automotives Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashok Appanna Vannur Vs the State of Karnataka

Sree Banni Mahankali Temple Vs the State of Karnataka

Suzlon Global Services Ltd., Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner