Partly allowed

B R Adithya v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024WP/6923/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Citing the lack of an opportunity for hearing before rejecting an application for a Scheduled Tribe certificate, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition in part, quashed the impugned endorsements, and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar to reconsider the application afresh within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Endorsements dated 13.01.2024 were quashed; matter remitted to Tahsildar to reconsider application afresh within eight weeks.

B R Adithya Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9616 WP No. 6923 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 6923 OF 2024 (GM-CC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

B. R. ADITHYA, S/O B. V. RAMA MOHANA, AGED 17 YEARS, MINOR, RESIDING AT BRAHMANAKODU, NARASEEPURA VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577126.

¶10

B. R. ARYAN, S/O B. V. RAMA MOHANA, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, MINOR, RESIDING AT BRAHMANAKODU, NARASEEPURA VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577126.

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SINCE PETITIONER Nos. 1 AND 2 ARE MINORS, THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, B. V. RAMA MOHANA, S/O LATE K. VEKATRAMANAIAH, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT BRHAMNAKODU, NARASEEPURA VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577126.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9616 WP No. 6923 of 2024

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT (TRIBAL WELFARE), VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

TAHSILDAR, KASABA HOBLI, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577126.

¶19

NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY, FIRST FLOOR, NSIC-MDBP BUILDING, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEW DELHI - 110020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON,

¶20

KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY, 18^TH CROSS ROAD, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560012, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI RAHUL CARIAPPA, K.S., AGA FOR R1; SRI C. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 13.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE R2 TO THE P1 (PRODUCED ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION AS ANNEXURE-J). QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 13.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE R2 TO THE P2 (PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE WRIT PETITION AS ANNEXURE-K). DIRECTING THE R2 TO ISSUE CASTE CERTIFICATE TO P1 AND 2 AS BELONGING TO MALERU-SCHEDULED TRIBE. DIRECTING THE R4 TO CONSIDER THE RESERVATION CATEGORY OF THE P1 FOR THE PURPOSE OF UG CET 2024 EXAM AS MALERUSCHEDULED TRIBE. DIRECTING THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:9616 WP No. 6923 of 2024

¶26

APPLICATION DATED 28.12.2023(PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE WRIT PETITION AS ANNEXURE-B) AND REPRESENTATION DATED 29.01.2024 (PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE WRIT PETITION AS ANNEXURE-L) FILED ON BEHALF OF P1 AND 2.

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the

¶30

following reliefs:

¶31

"I. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 13.01.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st petitioner (produced along with the Writ Petition as Annexure - J);

¶32

II. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 13.01.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent to the 2^nd petitioner (produced along with the writ petition as Annexure - K);

¶33

III. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to issue caste certificate to petitioners No.1 and 2 as belonging to "Maleru- Scheduled Tribe";

¶34

IV. Consequently, issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4^th respondent to consider the reservation category of the 1^st petitioner for the purposes of UG CET 2014 exam as Maleru - Scheduled Tribe;

¶35

V. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the application dated 28.12.2023 (produced along with the writ petition as Annexure - B) and representation dated 29.01.2024 (produced along with the writ

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:9616 WP No. 6923 of 2024

¶38

petition as Annexure - L ) filed on behalf of petitioner Nos.1 and 2; and

¶39

VI. Pass such other and further orders as deemed fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶40

The petitioner No.1 is an aspirant to be a part of the under graduate NEET Examination 2024, which is stated to be held on 09.03.2024. For the said purpose, the petitioner No.1 applies for a caste certificate depicting her to be belonging to ‘Maleru’ caste. The application is turned down by the impugned endorsement by the Tahsildar on 13.01.2024 holding that the petitioner has not furnished, any documents in support of the claim that she belongs to Maleru caste a Scheduled Tribe, and further indicates that even after communication to produce the documents, the petitioner has not produced.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶42

the petitioner has plethora of documents in his possession to demonstrate that he belongs to Maleru caste - Scheduled Tribe, and would submit that if only an

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9616 WP No. 6923 of 2024

¶44

opportunity had been given by the Tahsildar, they would have produced everything before the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar would have issued a caste certificate as sought for. Since no opportunity of the kind is granted, the endorsement is in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶45

The learned counsel for the respondents Sri C. Jagadeesh would submit that the burden lies on the petitioners to demonstrate that he belong to a particular caste, which he claims to i.e., Maleru. Learned counsel representing respondent No.2 would vehemently refute the submissions and contend that the petitioners do not belong to Scheduled Tribe i.e., Maleru. They are Maleru, which is not a Scheduled Tribe and no fault can be found with the endorsement so issued by the Tahsildar on 13.01.2024.

¶46

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:9616 WP No. 6923 of 2024

¶49

The issue is whether the petitioners

¶50

were afforded opportunity of hearing. The endorsement

¶51

does not indicate any opportunity of hearing given to the petitioners, for submission of any of the records. What is recorded is that the petitioners have not produced any documents in support of their claim.

¶52

The writ petition appends plethora of

¶53

documents, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is in support of their claim. Therefore, on this

¶54

short ground that, no opportunity to produce the documents before the Tahsildar was afforded, the endorsement is rendered unsustainable. Therefore, the Tahsildar shall now reconsider the application submitted

¶55

by the petitioners for issuance of a caste certificate. It is needless to observe that the petitioners shall place on record all the documents that are in their possession, in support of their claim, before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar, then shall consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:9616 WP No. 6923 of 2024

¶58

For the aforesaid reasons:

¶59

O R D E R

¶60

The writ petition is allowed-in-part .

¶61

Endorsements dated 13.01.2024, stands quashed.

¶62

The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Tahsildar, to consider the application/representation of the petitioners, afresh and pass necessary orders bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law.

¶63

Ordered accordingly.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

B R Adithya v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B R Adithya 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

Mrs Tanveera Samiulla Shariff Vs M/S Icici Bank Ltd.

Mr George Abraham Vs the Branch Manager

Mrs Smitha Vinay Vs State of Karnataka

Mr T Bhaskar Naidu Vs M/S Ashoknagar Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Zubida Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

M/S Vibhuti Trading Vs Canara Bank