Allowed

Sri Shanmukhaswamy v. the District Caste Verification Committee

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2022WP/16426/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed this writ petition quashing endorsements and enquiry notices issued by the District Caste Verification Committee and the Assistant Commissioner. The court held that the earlier caste certificates issued to the petitioners were valid and the subsequent orders cancelling them and the new endorsements rejecting their caste status were illegal as the Tahsildar was f

What did the court decide?

The endorsements dated 26-08-2021 and 11-10-2021 issued by the Assistant Commissioner and the District Caste Verification Committee stood quashed.

Sri Shanmukhaswamy Vs the District Caste… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 16426 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16426 OF 2021 (GM-CC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SHANMUKHASWAMY S/O SIDDARAMIAH S.G, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶9

SMT. SHOBA S., W/O SHANMUKHASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶10

SRI NUTHAN S., S/O SHANMUKHASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

¶11

KUMARI SHILPA S., D/O SHANMUKHASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE ALL R/O 8^TH MAIN ROAD, S.S.PURAM, TUMAKURU – 572 102.

¶14

SRI JYOTHI PRAKASH S/O SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.R

¶15

SMT.A.M.SHAILASHREE W/O JYOTHI PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 16426 of 2021

¶18

KUMAR PAVAN J., S/O JYOTHI PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS.

¶19

KUMARI MINCHUSREE D/O JYOTHI PRAKASH,

¶20

AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS.

¶21

PETITIONER NO.5 TO 8 ARE ALL R/O 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 7^TH CROSS, SRINAGARA DEVERAYAPATNA, TUMAKURU – 572 102.

¶22

SRI SARPABHUSAN G.S., S/O SIDDALINGIAH G, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶23

SMT.HEMALATHA

¶24

W/O SARPABHUSANA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶25

SRI KARTHIK G.S.,

¶26

S/o SARPABHUSANA,

¶27

AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶28

PETITIONERS NO.9-11 ARE

¶29

R/O NAGANNAPALYA SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU.

¶30

SRI M.S.CHIDANANDAMURTHY

¶31

S/O M.S.SHANKRIAH,

¶32

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O VIJAYNAGAR, TUMAKURU – 572 103.

¶33

SRI YOGESH

¶34

S/O CHANNABASIAH,

¶35

AGED AOBUT 42 YEARS,

¶36

R/O 6^TH CROSS, BANDAEPALYA,

¶37

¶38

WP No. 16426 of 2021

¶39

TUMAKURU.

¶40

SRI U.UMASHANKAR

¶41

S/O SIDDANANJIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O GARDEN ROAD, CHIKKAPETE, ARASINGARA BEEDHI, NEAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE, TUMAKURU.

¶42

M.R.TONTARADHAYA

¶43

S/O RUDRAYYA,

¶44

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶45

KUMAR MANOJ ARADHAYA M.T., S/O M.R.TONTARADHAYA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, U/G OF PETITIONER NO.15,

¶46

KUMAR RAHUL ARADHAYA M.T., S/O M.R.TONTARADHAYA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, U/G OF PETITIONER NO.15

¶47

PETITIONER NO.15-17 ARE R/O VADDARAHALLI, TUMAKURU T, TUMAKURU.

¶48

SRI SHAMBULINGASWAMY B.N.,

¶49

S/O NATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O BHEEMASANDRA, TUMAKURU.

¶50

SRI SIDDALINGASWAMY B.N., S/O NATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O BHEEMASANDRA, TUMAKURU.

¶51

¶52

WP No. 16426 of 2021

¶53

SRI NATARAJU S/O GURUPADASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶54

R/O BHEEMASANDRA, TUMAKURU.

¶55

SMT.PALLAVI M.S., W/O SHAMBULINGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶56

R/O BHEEMASANDRA, TUMAKURU.

¶57

SRI RAVISHANKAR S/O PARAMASHIVIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O SHANTINAGARA, TUMAKURU.

¶58

SRI G.S.SHASHIDHARA

¶59

S/O SRI SIDDALINGIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O MAHALAKSMI LAYOUT, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU.

¶60

KUMARI G.S.RANJITHA D/O G.S.SHASHIDHARA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O MAHALAKSMI LAYOUT, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU.

¶61

KUMARI G.S.MEGHA D/O G.S.SHASHIDHARA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O MAHALAKSMI LAYOUT, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU.

¶62

SRI NAGESH N.P., S/O PUTTARADHAYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶63

K.R.EXTENSION, M.G.ROAD,

¶64

¶65

WP No. 16426 of 2021

¶66

TUMAKURU.

¶67

…PETITIONERS

¶68

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE., ADVOCATE)

¶69

AND:

¶70

THE DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶71

THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU – 572 101.

¶72

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

¶73

MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMAKURU – 572 101.

¶74

THE TAHASILDAR GRADE 2, TALUK OFFICE, TUMAKURU – 572 101.

¶75

…RESPONDENTS

¶76

(BY SRI.C.JAGADISH., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R2 AND R3)

¶77

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION; QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE OF THE R1 AT ANNEXURE-F TO F25 DATED 12.8.2021 AND ETC.,

¶78

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶79

¶80

WP No. 16426 of 2021

¶81

ORDER

¶82

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 12.08.2021, passed by respondent No.1 and an order passed by respondent No.2, which is undated.

¶83

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri C.Jagadish, learned special counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶84

Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

¶85

The petitioners claim to belong to Beda Jangama caste and claim to have applied for issuance of caste certificates before the Tahsildar Grade-II, Taluk Office, Tumkuru. After local inspection report which confirmed that the petitioners belonged to Beda Jangama caste, the Tahsildar issue caste certificates to the petitioners. Later, the 3^rd respondent by another order dated 23.04.2019, cancelled the caste

¶86

¶87

WP No. 16426 of 2021

¶88

certificates issued to the petitioners. The petitioners calling in question the cancellation orders, approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.55669-55701/2018. The said writ petition comes to be allowed on 23-04-2019 holding as follows:

¶89

“4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ petitions is squarely covered by the order dated 25.6.2015 passed by a Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.23414/2013. Learned counsel for the respondents was unable to dispute the aforesaid submission.

¶90

5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and for the reasons assigned by the Bench of this Court in the aforesaid order and taking into account the fact that after issuance of the caste certificate, the Tahsildar becomes functus officio, therefore, he cannot exercise any authority to cancel the caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners.

¶91

6. In the result, the impugned orders are accordingly quashed. It is needless to state that any person who is aggrieved shall be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 4-B of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976.

¶92

7. With the aforesaid direction, the petitions are disposed of.”

¶93

This Court in terms of the aforesaid order holds that the Tahsildar had become functus-officio and, therefore, had no power to cancel the caste certificates, which were issued in favour of the petitioners and set aside the orders impugned

¶94

¶95

WP No. 16426 of 2021

¶96

therein. It was also observed that any person aggrieved by issuance of caste certificates in favour of the petitioners would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 4-B of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976.

¶97

It appears that the Tahsildar did not comply with the order dated 23.04.2019 ( supra ) and therefore, the petitioners preferred contempt petitions before this Court in Contempt Petition Nos.1497-529/2019. The Division Bench by its order dated 20.11.2019, has held as follows:

¶98

“3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for complainants we are of the considered view present proceedings are to be dropped for the reason that no positive direction has been issued to the respondents to issue caste certificate or there being any direction that portal in the website of the respondent ought to be opened. The complainants had approached the writ court on account of caste certificates issued to them having been cancelled. Said caste certificate, which was issued to complainants came to be cancelled, has been set aside. In other words, caste certificate, which was already issued to complainants would automatically be valid and as such question of directing respondents in this proceedings to issue fresh caste certificate would not arise. Hence, contempt proceedings are dropped. However, complainants would be at liberty to take steps as may be available to them under law.”

¶99

¶100

WP No. 16426 of 2021

¶101

In terms of the afore-quoted order, the respondents were directed to issue fresh caste certificates to the complainants / petitioners and it was also observed that, once the orders cancelling the caste certificates were quashed by the order dated 23.04.2019 in W.P.Nos.55669-55701/2018, the caste certificates issued earlier would automatically become valid. On this score, when the petitioners approached respondent No.2 – the Assistant Commissioner with their representations, the Assistant Commissioner issued the impugned endorsements rejecting their representations, on the score that the petitioners have provided false information regarding the caste. It also transpires that the petitioners requested the Deputy Commissioner to issue direction to the concerned Officer for release of the caste certificates. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned enquiry notices all dated 12.08.2021, directed the petitioners to appear before the Committee for enquiry with regard to their caste. It is these endorsements along with the enquiry notices dated 12.08.2021, issued by respondent No.1, that are called in question in the subject writ petition.

¶102

10 -

¶103

WP No. 16426 of 2021

¶104

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶105

would contend that the order which declared the act of the Tahsildar Grade-II in tinkering with the caste certificate earlier issued having become final, there should no impediment for issuance of caste certificate to the petitioner and the authorities are deliberately issuing such endorsements.

¶106

The learned special counsel representing the respondents would seek to refute the contention of the petitioner and submit that the petitioner does not even belong to the Scheduled Caste, he is Backward Class-A category and has played fraud by securing caste certificate. But, would admit that the Tahsildar could not have reviewed his own order.

¶107

In the light of what is quoted hereinabove i.e., the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10446 of 2019, the clear finding of this Court was that the Tahsildar had become functus-officio to review his own order and, therefore, quashed the order dated 31-12-2018 in review. With the quashment of that order what would emerge is that, the earlier

¶108

11 -

¶109

WP No. 16426 of 2021

¶110

order passed by the Tahsildar would get restored as the Tahsildar by his order dated 17-09-2018 had directed issuance of caste certificate to the petitioner declaring that he belongs to Beda Jangama community. It is this order of the Tahsildar which would get restored.

¶111

The impugned endorsements are held to be illegal only

¶112

on the ground that this Court in Writ Petition No.10446 of 2019, had quashed the order reviewing the earlier order on the ground that the Tahsildar had become functus-officio . In the very same order this Court at para-8 permitted any person, including the 1^st respondent, would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 4-B and F of the Act. Therefore, the said liberty would still operate subject to its availability at this juncture.

¶113

For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶114

O R D E R

¶115

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶116

12 -

¶117

WP No. 16426 of 2021

¶118

(ii) The endorsements dated 26-08-2021 and 11-102021 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively, stand quashed.

¶119

(ii) Liberty reserved in the order dated 22.04.2019, in W.P.No.10446 of 2019 passed by this Court still operates subject to its availability at this juncture.

¶120

Sd/JUDGE

¶121

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Sri Shanmukhaswamy v. the District Caste Verification Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shanmukhaswamy v. the District Caste Verification Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Consumer Federation Ltd. Vs the Deputy Director

Mr Hari Yogendra Tripathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M S Harish Vs Smt. Shubhamangala

Shivprakash Vs Additional Director General of Police

Danush N S Vs District Caste Verification Committee

Sri. a. S. Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka