Dismissed

Vinayak Hariyappa Bhatkal S/O Hariyappa Bhatkal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2024WP/102308/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a pensioner challenging a show-cause notice requiring documents to substantiate his parents' residence. The Court held the petitioner must produce documents to the authority rather than relying on a brother's pending status determination.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed, liberty reserved to submit documents to the respondent agency.

Vinayak Hariyappa Bhatkal S/O Hariyappa… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8164 WP No. 102308 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 102308 OF 2024 (GM-CC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

VINAYAK HARIYAPPA BHATKAL, S/O HARIYAPPA BHATKAL, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, R/O. CHURCH ROAD, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA-581401.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶11

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, UTTARA KANANDA DISTRICT, KARAWR-581301.

¶12

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed byASHPAK KASHIMSAMALAGALADINNI Location: High Court ofKarnataka, Dharwad BenchDate: 2024.07.02 15:48:08+0530

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MANGALURU REGION, 2^ND FLOOR, MUDA BUILDING, URVA STORE, MANGALURU.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. C. JAGADISH, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 & R3)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS, QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT DATED 28-02-2024 IN NO. JAVI:3:NAHAJANI.MAMVI 2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-C; BY THE ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER AS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8164 WP No. 102308 of 2024

¶19

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the notice issued by respondent No.3 calling upon the petitioner to furnish the documents to substantiate that petitioner’s parents were permanent residents of State of Karnataka as on the date of residential notification.

¶22

The said show-cause notice is assailed by the petitioner on the premises that case status of the petitioner’s brother is already decided by this Court and therefore, there cannot be any further enquiry. The petitioner’s grievance is that his brother’s status is already concluded and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.36702 to 36718/2000 C/w W.P.Nos.38791 to 38800/2000 has held that mentioning of ‘Bovi’ ‘Boi’ ‘Boyi’ indicated in the caste certificate relates to ‘Bhovi’ community, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste. Referring to the judgment, petitioner claims that there cannot be any further enquiry.

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner in the captioned writ petition is totally misconceived. The petitioner’s claim that his

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8164 WP No. 102308 of 2024

¶25

brother’s status is decided by this Court and therefore, there cannot be any further enquiry, cannot be acceded to at this juncture. Respondent No.3 has issued a show-cause notice to furnish the documents. Petitioner in response of the notice, could have placed on record this judgment. The petitioner could have also further produce documents to substantiate that petitioner is full brother of one Jagannath Hariyappa Bhaikal, who is petitioner No.3 in the said judgment. Without producing these documents, petitioner has rushed to this Court on the premise that respondent No.3 cannot conduct any enquiry and petitioner’s status that he belongs to ‘Bhovi’ community is a concluded fact. This statement cannot be acceded to. Whether the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench cited supra , would enure to the benefit of petitioner is a matter of enquiry. Petitioner ought to have produce these documents before respondent No.3 to enable respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders.

¶26

In that view of that matter, I am not inclined to grant any indulgence. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed .

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8164 WP No. 102308 of 2024

¶29

Liberty is however reserved to the petitioner to produce all these documents before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 after examining the documents, shall pass appropriate orders in

¶30

accordance with law.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Vinayak Hariyappa Bhatkal S/O Hariyappa Bhatkal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak Hariyappa Bhatkal S/O Hariyappa Bhatkal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Justice B Padmaraj (Retired) Vs the Union of India

D v Gopalappa Vs State of Karnataka

J K Suresh Vs Chikmagalur Kodagu Grameena Bank

Progressive Liberal Education Foundation Vs the Commissioner

Smt Saraswati W/O Vinayak Dhongadi Vs Regional Commissioner

Ramesh S/O Shrishail Bagewadi Vs Inspector General of Police