Allowed

Arjuman Bhanu K v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2022WP/893/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order cancelling the petitioners' caste and income certificates and a resulting First Information Report. The Court held the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction as the appeal was filed by the Tahasildar instead of an aggrieved person, and the FIR registration was unauthorized as it was based on an anonymous complaint

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 23.11.2016 cancelled the caste and income certificates and the First Information Report registered in Crime No.222/2016 are hereby quashed.

Arjuman Bhanu K Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.893 OF 2017 (GM – RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

1 . ARJUMAN BHANU K W/O. KHADAR ILIYAS KHAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENT AT NO 2513/8 B BLOCK

¶9

DAVANGERE TOWN - 577 002

¶10

2 . KHADAR ILIYAS KHAN

¶11

S/O. K. BAB JAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDENT AT NO 2513/8 B BLOCK

¶12

DAVANAGERE TOWN - 577 002

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND :

¶16

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA SUB-DIVISION SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577 202

¶18

¶19

3 . THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BHADRAVATHI OLD POLICE STATION BHADRAVATHI TOWN CIRCLE BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 202

¶20

4 . THE TAHASILDAR BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 202

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RENUKARADHYA R.D., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM R-2 TO 4 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 23.11.2016 MADE BY R-2 AND REGISTERING THE CASE IN CRIME NO.222/2016 BY R-3 POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC II COURT, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 177, 181, 420, 417 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 5(A) OF KARNATAKA SC/ST AND OTHER B.C (RESERVATION OF APPOINTMENT) ACT 1990 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The 4th respondent alleged that the petitioners

¶27

by obtaining false income and caste certificates tried to obtain scholarship for their daughter and seat in a professional college. On the basis of the said allegation, he filed an appeal under Section 4B of the

¶28

¶29

Karnataka SC/ST and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment) Act, 1990 (for short `Act') before the 2nd respondent for canceling the caste certificate issued by him.

¶30

The 2nd respondent by impugned order

¶31

dated 23.11.2016 cancelled the income and caste certificates issued in favour of petitioners and further directed the Tahsildar to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶32

On an anonymous complaint, the

¶33

jurisdictional police registered the first information report against the petitioners in Crime No.222/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 5(A), 6(A), 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition before this Court.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶35

petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by

¶36

¶37

the 2nd respondent canceling the income and caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners is one without authority of law since the power to cancel the caste and income certificates vests with the Caste and Income Verification Committee as specified under Rule 7 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992 (for short `Rules'). He further submits that the first information report registered on the basis of the anonymous letter is also without authority of law since the Directorate of Civil Right Enforcement is only the competent authority as specified under Rule 7A of the Rules for lodging the first information report against the petitioners. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent and so also the registration of first information report by the jurisdictional police is one without authority of law.

¶38

¶39

On the other hand, learned High Court

¶40

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State submits that the petitioners having obtained certificate, by making false representation, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent canceling the caste and income certificates issued in favour of petitioners as well as the registration of first information report against the petitioners by the jurisdictional police is justified and does not warrant any interference.

¶41

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

The petitioners were issued with income and caste certificate to the effect that they belong to economically and backward classes by 4th respondent under Section 4A of the Act.

¶43

Section 4B of the Act specifies that any person aggrieved by the order passed by the

¶44

¶45

Tahasildar under Section 4A of the Act may prefer an appeal with the Assistant Commissioner concerned.

¶46

In the present case, 4th respondent having issued a certificate in favour of the petitioners to the effect that they belong to economically and backward classes, is not a person aggrieved under Section 4B of the Act, hence, the appeal filed by the Tahasildar before the Assistant Commissioner concerned is one without authority of law.

¶47

The Assistant Commissioner ignoring this aspect and contrary to Section 4B of the Act has passed the impugned order and the same is not sustainable in law.

¶48

The complaint and the first information report was lodged by anonymous person against the petitioners in light of the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner concerned.

¶49

¶50

Rule 7A of the Rules specifies that, if any person obtains false certificate, the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement shall take steps to prosecute such claimant, who had obtained a false certificate. In the present case, the first information report was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by an anonymous person. Hence, the first information report registered against the petitioners is contrary to Rule 7A of the Rules.

¶51

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as registration of the first information report against the petitioners is the one without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶54

ii. The order dated 23.11.2016 passed by 2nd respondent at Annexure-A and the first

¶55

¶56

information report registered in Crime No.222/2016 by 3rd respondent pending on the file of JMFC II Court, Bhadravathi, Shivamogga District, is hereby quashed.

¶57

iii. It is needless to state that the authority is at liberty to take appropriate action, if permissible in law.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

SJK

Arjuman Bhanu K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjuman Bhanu K v. 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

Saifuddin Mohammed Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Honnashettappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B M Nagarajappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddaramu B R Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. M. Krishnappa Vs Sri. B C Hanumantharayappa