Allowed

Pandappa v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2021WP/201407/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Calaburgi Bench allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner employed as a driver in KSRTC seeking a caste validity certificate. The court directed the respondent Deputy Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation expeditiously within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner's representation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Pandappa Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.201407/2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pandappa s/o Bakkappa Narasannavar, Age : 41 years, Occ : Driver, R/o Village Citta, Tq. & Dist : Bidar - 585 403.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri K.M.Ghate, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

The State of Karnataka,

¶13

Through its Principal Secretary,

¶14

Revenue Department,

¶15

M.S.Building, 1^st Floor,

¶16

Dr.B.R.Ambedekar Vidhi,

¶17

Bengaluru - 560 001.

¶18

The Deputy Commissioner

¶19

(Chairman Caste Verification Committee), Bidar, Dist : Bidar. 585 401.

¶20

The Deputy Director of Department of Social Welfare, NOUBAD, Bidar - 585 401.

¶21

¶22

The Assistant Director, Grade-I of Social Welfare Department, NOUBAD, Bidar- 585 401.

¶23

The Tahasildar, Tq : Bidar, Dist : Bidar - 585 401.

¶24

… Respondents

¶25

(Sri C.Jagadish, Advocate for R1 to R4; Smt.Anuradha M.Desai, GA for R5)

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to allow the writ petition and to issue writ of mandamus/direction, directing the respondents authorities to issue caste validity certificate of the petitioner as per letter issued by the Divisional Controller, NEKRTC Ballary Division, Ballary dated 28.07.2016 vide Annexure-A and reminder/warning letter dated 20.12.2018 vide Annexure-H and etc.

¶27

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioner has been appointed as a Driver in KSRTC. He has got the said appointment as he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. His employer has insisted upon him producing validity certificate as contemplated under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Rules 1992, from respondent No.2. Accordingly, the

¶30

¶31

petitioner has made necessary application for issuance of validity certificate by the respondent No.2. However, as no action was taken by respondent No.2 in this regard, he has preferred the instant writ petition.

¶32

Learned counsel Sri C.Jagadish, appearing for respondent No.2, has submitted on instructions that they would conduct necessary enquiry and find out whether the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community as claimed by him and thereafter, would issue the validity certificate. He prays for two months time to do the needful. His submission is placed on record.

¶33

Hence, the following :

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The writ petition is allowed.

¶36

The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation dated 28.08.2018 made by the petitioner (Annexure-C to the writ petition) in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

¶38

No order as to costs.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

Pandappa v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandappa v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

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 Venkatesh Motors, Yadgir Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Rajashekhar S/O Sayabanna Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Sri. Basavaraj S/O Hanumanthappa Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Subhash Vs the Registrar and Anr.

The Executive Engineer (E) Vs Venkappa S/O Balakrishna Vajantri

Gouthama Buddha Education Society Vs the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary