Dismissed¶66

Reshma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2025WA/200046/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Caste certificate cancellation — Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 — Sections 4-A and 4-B — appeal to Assistant Commissioner — 30-day limitation — third-party complainant — limitation runs from date of knowledge of obtaining caste certificate — word 'may' in Section 4-B — no condonation of delay required — marriage to Scheduled Caste person and adoption of Buddhism confers no claim to reserved category — Buddhist Category-A — Category III-A (Yelam Reddy) — election as Councillor, Ward No.1, Town Municipality, Humnabad — Valsamma Paul; Puneeth Rai; Anjan Kumar; Archana M.G. relied on — intra-court writ appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶66

Reshma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal under Section 4-B of the Act was barred by delay, having been filed beyond 30 days without any application for condonation of delay. +2 more

¶40

Court's answer

Section 4-B of the Act provides an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner against an order of the Tahsildar under Section 4-A, to be preferred within 30 days by any person aggrieved; accordingly, the contention that the Appellate Authority could not entertain the appeal beyond 30 days without condoning delay has no merit and is rejected.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

Where the appeal under Section 4-B is filed by a third party challenging the issuance of a caste certificate, the 30-day period runs from the date of that person's knowledge of the obtaining of the certificate under Section 4-A; the word 'may' is employed in Section 4-B; hence the complaint filed immediately after the appellant's election was in time and the delay contention is rejected.

¶56

Key takeaways

The appellant belongs to Category III-A and cannot claim the caste of her husband; after marriage she adopted Buddhism and therefore cannot claim the benefit of being considered as belonging to Buddhist Category-A caste; the learned Single Judge's finding to this effect rests on settled principles of law (Valsamma Paul, Puneeth Rai, Anjan Kumar, Archana M.G.) and on appreciation of the material on record.ratio¶58
The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based on settled principles of law and appreciation of the material on record; there is no error or perversity calling for interference in the intra-court appeal, and consequently no reason to entertain the appeal.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (GM-CC) under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the learned Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition challenging cancellation of the appellant's caste certificate. Held, dismissing the appeal: (i) Under Section 4-B of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, any person aggrieved by the Tahsildar's order under Section 4-A may prefer an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner within 30 days; where such an appeal is filed by a third party complaining of a falsely obtained caste certificate, the 30-day period runs from the date of his knowledge of the obtaining of the certificate, and since the word 'may' is employed in Section 4-B, the appeal filed immediately after the complainant acquired knowledge was not barred by delay notwithstanding that no condonation application was made; (ii) a person belonging to Category III-A (Yelam Reddy) who marries a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste and adopts Buddhism cannot claim the benefit of being considered as belonging to Buddhist Category-A caste, the learned Single Judge's finding resting on Valsamma Paul, Puneeth Rai, Anjan Kumar and Archana M.G.; (iii) the Single Judge's findings disclosed no error or perversity warranting interference. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 200046 OF 2025 (GM-CC)

BETWEEN:

RESHMA W/O SHRIDHAR

AGE: 27 YEARS

OCC: MEMBER OF TOWN MUNCIPALITY, HUMNABAD R/O INDIRA NAGAR, HUMNABAD, DIST BIDAR – 585401.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DIST. CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, D.C.OFFICE BIDAR – 585401.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BASAVAKALYAN

¶20

DIST.BIDAR – 585401.

¶21

THE TAHASILDAR HUMNABAD

¶22

DIST.BIDAR – 585401.

¶23

SHIVAPUTRA MALAGE AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORKER R/O H.NO.1-96, INDIRA NAGAR,

¶24

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025

¶25

HUMNABAD, DIST.BIDAR - 585401

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI C. JAGADISH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; R4 SERVED)

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.203018/2024.

¶29

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND

¶31

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶34

This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.203018/2024(GM-CC).

¶35

Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are

¶36

that, the appellant was elected to the Town Municipal Council, Humnabad under the reserved category. The

¶37

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025

¶38

respondent No.4 filed a complaint to the authorities with regard to the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the appellant. The Caste Certificate issued came to be cancelled which was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

¶39

Sri. Chaithanyakumar Chandriki, learned

¶40

counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the appellant on 15.05.2019 which came to be challenged on 14.12.2020. Hence, there is a delay and on this ground alone, the respondent No.2 ought to have dismissed the appeal. Admittedly, no application for condonation of delay was filed. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the said aspect and dismissed the writ petition. The non-consideration of delay by the authority and the learned Single Judge is contrary

¶41

to the Section 4-B of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred as

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025

¶43

‘the Act’) as no appeal is maintainable beyond 30 days. It is further submitted that Caste Certificate issued by the 3^rd respondent is in accordance with law and the same was issued after due verification and enquiry and the same should not have been cancelled by the 2^nd respondent without condoning the delay. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, consequently by allowing the writ petition.

¶44

Per contra, Sri. C. Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the appellant got elected on the basis of a Caste Certificate as a Councilor to the Municipality. Admittedly, the appellant belongs to Yelam Reddy Caste, she got married to a person belonging to Schedule Caste and she adopted Buddhism religion. It is submitted that the appellant filed a nomination declaring that she belongs to Buddhist category-A and got elected. On the complaint of the 4^th respondent, enquiry was conducted and it was found that

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025

¶46

she does not belong to the Buddhist category-A caste, which has been rightly considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition.

¶47

We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and the material available on record.

¶48

The pleading and evidence available on record indicates that the appellant contested the election to the post of Councilor in Ward No.1 of Town Municipality, Humnabad as a person belonging to a reserve category and she got elected in the said election. The respondent No.4 filed complaints dated 14.12.2020 and 31.12.2020 before the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. The respondent No.2 based on the complaint, conducted a detailed enquiry in the appeal after providing sufficient opportunity to the

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025

¶50

appellant and has set aside the Caste Certificate dated 15.05.2019 issued by the 3^rd respondent – Tahsildar in favour of the appellant as a Buddhist-A category. The appellant has challenged the said order of the 2^nd respondent dated 28.06.2024 before the respondent No.1. The 1^st respondent after considering the material available on record has dismissed the revision petition.

¶51

The contention of the appellant that the

¶52

Appellate Authority without condoning the delay has entertained the appeal, which was filed beyond 30 days has no merit and is accordingly rejected for the simple reason that Section 4-B of the Act provides for an appeal against the order under Section 4-A of the Act. Any person aggrieved by an order of the Tahsildar under Section 4-A of the Act, may within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the Assistant commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner after hearing both the parties and giving an opportunity of being heard, may pass an order on the appeal.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025

¶55

In the case on hand, the 4^th respondent filed a complaint immediately after the appellant got elected. In other words, he came to know about the obtaining of the false Caste Certificate by the appellant and thereafter the respondent No.4 filed the complaint with the 2^nd respondent. The filing of appeal under Section 4-B of the Act is by any person aggrieved by an order of the Tahsildar under Section 4-A of the Act.

¶56

The 4^th respondent is a third party challenging the issuance of Caste Certificate in favour of the appellant under Section 4-B of the Act by way of an appeal. Hence, the 30 days’ time provided would run from the date of the knowledge of obtaining the Caste Certificate under Section 4-A of the Act by the appellant. In Section 4-B of the Act, word ‘may’ is employed. Hence, the contention of delay as urged by the appellant has no merit and accordingly, rejected.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025

¶58

The learned Single Judge has recorded a clear finding that the appellant belongs to category III-A and she cannot claim the caste of her husband. The said finding is based on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs.Valsamma Paul vs. Cochin University and others¹ , Puneeth Rai vs. Dinesh Choudary² , Anjan Kumar vs. Union of India and others³ and the decision of this Court in the case of the Smt. Archana M.G. vs. Smt. Abhilasha and others⁴ . The appellant belongs to category III-A and after the marriage, she adopted Buddhism, so she now cannot claim the benefit of being considered as belonging to Buddhist category-A caste. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge are based on the settled principles of law and on appreciation of the material on record, we do not find any error or perversity calling for interference in this intra Court appeal.

¶59