Allowed

Shivprakash v. Additional Director General of Police

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2022WP/4990/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell regarding a caste certificate. The Court quashed the notice, holding that the Cell lacked jurisdiction as the matter required a prior reference and conclusion by the District Caste Verification Committee.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 22.01.2016 is quashed. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to take action if so advised.

Shivprakash Vs Additional Director General of Police — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4990 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4990 OF 2016 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHIVPRAKASH,

¶8

S/O Y.S.PARMESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC:PRIVATE BUSINESS, R/O KALARI JANGAM MATH, KALARI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶9

SRI. MAHESH, S/O Y.S.PARMESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC:HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER, R/O KALARI JANGAM MATH, KALARI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶10

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

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

¶16

WP No. 4990 of 2016

¶17

THE POLICE INSPECTOR, CRE CELL BANGALORE REGION, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR, MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI, DISTRICT RAMANAGARA.

¶19

THE POLICE INSPECTOR, MAGADI POLICE STATION, MAGADI DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA – 562 120.

¶20

THE AMBEDKAR YUVA SENE, BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. KODANDARAM MAHANADU TOTATADAMANE, NISRGA ESTATE, SATYAGRAHA ROAD, VITTALPURA, KALYA POST, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R5 - SERVED)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

¶24

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION; QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE AT ANNEXURE - A DATED 22.1.16 AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

¶26

IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

WP No. 4990 of 2016

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the notices issued by the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell.

¶31

The issue that is brought before the Court need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter as in terms of Rule 7(4) of the Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, ETC.) Rules, 1992, the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell would get jurisdiction only after the matter is decided by the District Caste Verification Committee and that decision is taken to its logical end.

¶32

An identical issue came up before this Court in W.P.No.11704/2013 disposed on 20.03.2019. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case has held as follows:

¶33

"4. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe viz., Kadu Kuruba Caste. It is averred in the writ petition that petitioner obtained caste certificate from the Tahsildar after due verification. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed in the Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice from the respondent to appear in connection with an enquiry with regard to the caste certificate. In the aforesaid factual

¶34

¶35

WP No. 4990 of 2016

¶36

background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶37

¶38

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice as the aforesaid authority is required to work under the District Caste Verification Committee and in the absence of any enquiry pending before the aforesaid Committee, the respondent has no jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to Rule 7(4) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Rules, 1992. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has relied on an order of this Court dated 16.01.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.14144/2008 and has submitted that in view of the aforesaid order, no interference is called for.

¶39

6. I have considered the respective submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further it is apposite to refer relevant extract of Rule 6A and 7 of the Rules, which reads as under:

¶40

[6-A. Verification by the Caste and Income Verification Committee - Caste verification Committee or as the case may be, the Case and Income Verification Committee shall refer the application for issue of Validity Certificate to the District Social Welfare Officer concerned of the Social Welfare Department in the case of person belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to the District Officer for Backward Classed concerned of the Backward Classes Department in case of person belonging to Other Backward Classes for verification and report after holding local enquires.]

¶41

¶42

WP No. 4990 of 2016

¶43

7. Issue of Validity certificate – (1) After getting a report on a reference made under Rule 6-A, the Caste Verification Committee and the Caste and Income Verification Committee shall hold an enquiry after giving opportunity to the parties concerned.

¶44

(2) The Committee may examine school records, birth registration certificate if any, and such other relevant materials and may also examine any other person who has the knowledge of the community of the applicant.

¶45

Provided that in case of an applicant who belongs to the Scheduled Tribes, the Committee may also examine the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies and such other matters.

¶46

(3) If on such enquiry the Committee finds that the applicant claim is genuine it may issue the certificate sought for, in Form I-A, but where the committee finds that the applicant obtained the Caste Certificate or Income and Case certificate by making a false representation, it shall pass an order rejecting the application indicating the reasons therefore for such refusal. An order under this sub-rule shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of the applicant.

¶47

(4) Where the Committee even after the enquiry referred to in sub-rules (2) and (3) finds that the claim is doubtful, and is not in a position to come to a conclusion it shall refer he matter to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement for detailed investigation and

¶48

¶49

WP No. 4990 of 2016

¶50

report. On receipt of the report from the Directorate of Civil rights enforcement, the Committee shall dispose off the case on merit, after holding such enquiry as it deems fit and after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. An order under this sub-rule shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of the application.

¶51

7. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that Caste and Income Verification Committee shall refer the application for issue of validity certificate to the District Social Officer concerned and report after holding local enquiries. Thereafter, on getting a report on a reference made under Rule 6A, Caste Verification Committee shall hold an enquiry after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. From perusal of Rule 7(4), it is evident that if the Committee after holding an enquiry finds that the claim is doubtful and the Committee is not in a position to come to a conclusion, it shall refer the matter to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement for detailed investigation and report. It is well settled in law that when the statute provides a manner of doing a particular thing in a particular manner, that thing has to be performed in that manner alone. In this connection, reference may be made to decisions of Supreme Court in ‘RAMCHANDRA KESHAV ADKE AND OTHERS vs. GOVIND JOTI CHAVARE AND OTHERS’, AIR 1975 SC 915 and ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. ANJUM M.H. GHASWALA AND OTHERS’, (2002) 1 SCC 633.

¶52

8. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the enquiry in to the caste certificate has to be made by the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement on the basis of reference made by District Caste Verification Committee as provided under Rule 7(4) of the Rules. In the instant case, the

¶53

¶54

WP No. 4990 of 2016

¶55

Civil Rights Enforcement cell on its own has issued the notice which is in contravention of Rule 7(4) of the Rules, the same therefore cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is pertinent to note that in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in W.P.No.14144/2008, neither Rule 6A nor Rule 7 of the Rules had been considered. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is distinguishable.

¶56

9. In view of preceding analysis, the impugned notice dated 17.12.2012 is quashed. Needless to state that the respondent shall be at liberty to take action against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law."

¶57

In the light of the issue standing covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court ( supra) and the statute itself empowering the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell to issue notice only after the Caste Verification Committee comes to conclude in a particular manner, the notice that is challenged in the case at hand is without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is to be obliterated.

¶58