Sri. a Velumurugan Vs the District Caste Veification Committee

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.JYA.DRU:CR:177/21-22 DATED 04.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR - 3^RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶31

IN W.P. NO.24268/2021

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

SRI A. VELUMURUGAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE S. ARUMUGAM,

¶34

MS. V. ABHIRAMI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O SRI A. VELUMURUGAN,

¶35

SRI V. SHIVA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, S/O SRI A. VELUMURUGAN,

¶36

3 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:5678 WP No. 19369 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24268 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ALL ARE R/AT M.C. HALLI VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK-577228. CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶40

...PETITIONERS

¶41

(BY SRI S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶42

AND:

¶43

THE TAHSILDAR, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.

¶44

THE DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKMAGALURU-577101 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶45

THE DIRECTORATE OF TRIBAL WELFARE, LOTUS BUILDING, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶46

...RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SRI C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE (V/C))

¶48

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.11.2021 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.CR 6/2019-20 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A ONLY TO THE EXTENT WHERE THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HAS REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS AFRESH.

¶49

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶50

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5678 WP No. 19369 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24268 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶53

ORAL ORDER

¶54

Petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the Director, Tribal Welfare Department, Bangalore in Appeal No. CR.6/2019-20 filed by the petitioners under Section 4-D of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (hereinafter for short referred to as ‘the Act’). By the impugned order, the Director of Tribal Welfare has passed the following order :

¶55

“The impugned order dated 29.04.2019 bearing No. Ja. Pa. Sa:CR:03:2009-10 passed by the respondent produced at Annexure A is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Respondent. The Respondent is hereby directed to consider the claim of the appellant afresh, after serving copies of all communications to the appellant. Further, it is made clear that the District Caste Verification Committee shall refer the matter to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Add. Commissioner Tribal Development and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 94. The Inspector of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell should go to the local place of residence from where the appellant and ancestors originally hail and personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the appellant herein and also verify the genuineness of

¶56

5 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:5678 WP No. 19369 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24268 of 2021

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

the letters issued by the District Collector, Thiruvannamallai in his letter dated 2.3.2018, the Tahsildar, Kalasapakkam in his letter dated 26.8.2013 and letter dated 25.1.2010 addressed by the Sub-Registrar, Kadaladi to the President, Dalita Sangharsha Federation, New Town, Bhadravathi and shall submit a report to the DCVC. The DCVC shall serve a copy of the same to the appellant and also to the complainant viz., Shivalingappa, President, Dalita Sanghatanegala Okkuta, G.K. Bhimappa, President, District Valmiki Sangha, Chickmagalur. Thereafter after hearing both the parties appropriate order shall be passed within 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. All other contentions of both the parties are kept open.”

¶60

Case of the petitioners is that they belong to Valmiki Nayaka community born in the State of Karnataka. That their forefathers had migrated from the State of Tamilnadu about 70 years ago. The Tahsildar, Tarikere Taluk, the competent authority had issued caste certificate in favour of the petitioners, pursuant to which the petitioners pursued their studies and are now still pursuing their higher studies. That based on certain complaint made by a private person with vested interest disputing the caste of the petitioners, Tahsildar had passed an order cancelling the caste certificate, constraining the petitioners to file W.P No. 41591/2001, which was allowed, directing a fresh inquiry to be conducted in the matter. In compliance with the said order, Tahsildar had held

¶61

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5678 WP No. 19369 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24268 of 2021

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

an enquiry, confirming the community of the petitioners, issued another caste certificate dated 06.12.2007. Subsequently pursuant to the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 31.01.2009, the Tahsildar yet again cancelled the caste certificate by order dated 16.02.2009 which was assailed in W.P No.13839/2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 13.07.2009 by this Court with an observation that the migration of the petitioners from Tamilnadu to Karnataka would have no nexus to their caste which is required to be considered.

¶64

It appears petitioners had challenged transfer of certain lands belonging to their family, invoking the provisions of the Act. During the said proceedings, the transferee had sought for cancellation of caste certificate, in furtherance of which, certain information were apparently placed for consideration before the authority disregard of the earlier orders. Placing reliance on the information so secured from Tamilnadu, an order dated 02.04.2018 was issued cancelling

¶65

the caste certificate, aggrieved by which, an appeal was filed in Appeal No. 9/2018. Subsequently, Tahsildar by order dated 27.07.2014 sought to cancel the certificate issued in favour of

¶66

7 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:5678 WP No. 19369 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24268 of 2021

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

the petitioners declaring them as belonging to Valmiki Nayaka caste, which was again put to question in WP No. 31886/2014. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 14.07.2014 relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Geethanjali vs Canara Bank¹ on the question of jurisdiction. Yet again, the matter was taken up by the respondent No. 2 upon the complaint filed by the private persons resulting in yet another order of cancellation of caste certificate dated 29.04.2019. Aggrieved by which petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 4-D in Appeal No. CR.6/2019-20. By order dated 12.11.2021, the Director of Tribal Welfare, Bengaluru, passed the order as noted above. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶70

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners taking this Court through the records submit that once this Court has accepted the contention of the petitioners being members belonging to Valmiki Nayaka community by order dated 13.07.2009, the subsequent initiation proceedings questioning the authenticity of the caste of the petitioners at the instance of

¶71

1ILR 2012 4384

¶72

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:5678 WP No. 19369 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24268 of 2021

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

certain private persons with vested interest, ought not to have been resorted to by the respondent authorities which amounts to abuse of process of law. He submits the petitioners have approached this Court as many as four occasions on account of patent illegal orders passed by the respondent authorities. He insists that when the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had already taken note of the fact that merely because the parents of the petitioners had migrated from Tamilnadu to Karnataka, would not be a ground to question the certificates issued to the petitioners who are indeed born in the State of Karnataka. Subjecting the petitioners to endless issue of the caste verification is unwarranted. He submits the impugned order yet again reopening the whole issue with a direction for verification of the roots of the petitioners is uncalled for. That pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court and the confirmation of the caste of the petitioners, the second petitioner is pursuing her post graduation in Medicine and the third petitioner is pursuing his studies in Engineering and the cloud cast on by the respondent authorities regarding their caste has caused impediment in their deriving the benefit available to their community. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petitions.

¶75

9 -

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:5678 WP No. 19369 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24268 of 2021

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

Sri Jagadish, the Special Counsel appearing for the respondent authorities, on the other hand submits that there is serious allegation of fraud and misrepresentation against the petitioners in they obtaining the caste certificate. He submits upon the verification and the report called for by the authorities, the District Collector of Tiruvannamalai District as well as the Tahsildar of the particular district from where the petitioners hail have reported that the relatives and the ancestors of the petitioners belong to a backward class and they do not belong to the Scheduled Tribe Community. He therefore submits under the circumstances the appellate authority had passed the impugned order for re-verification of the entire matter including a personal visit to the local place of residence of the petitioners ancestors and to verify the records thereof and he submits no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners if the course directed by the authority by the impugned order is adopted. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petitions.

¶79

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶80

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:5678 WP No. 19369 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24268 of 2021

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

The ancestors of the petitioners hailing from

¶83

Tamilnadu is not in dispute. Though petitioners claim to have been born in the State of Karnataka, the issue which has been lingering over the years is whether or not the petitioners belong to Valmiki community of Tamilnadu which appears to be synonymous to Nayaka community in Karnataka. Certificates which were issued confirming the petitioners to be the Valmiki community synonymous to Nayaka community at Karnataka have been cancelled on three occasions. This Court though had shown indulgence in quashing the said orders of cancellation, it was left open for the authorities to adjudicate the matter in the manner known to law also adverting to their competency.

¶84

Perusal of the impugned order indicate that reports were called for from the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, regarding the caste status and migration certificates of the petitioners and their father. It appears the Sub-Registrar, Kadaladi, also had addressed a letter regarding the birth certificate and the birth entry of the father of the petitioners. The said reports appear to have indicated facts contrary to what has been claimed and contended by the petitioners. The appellate authority however

¶85

11 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:5678 WP No. 19369 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24268 of 2021

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

has not accepted the said report instead has passed the impugned order as noted above, primarily on the ground that the petitioners have not been served with the copies of the reports which are called for and relied upon before passing the order cancelling the caste certificate. The appellate authority therefore has found it inappropriate to confirm the order of cancellation without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.

¶89

In addition, already as noted above, the authority has also directed the Inspector of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell to go to the local place of residence from where the appellants and ancestors originally hail and to personally verify and collect all the facts of social status claimed by the appellants and also to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the letters issued by District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, in his letter dated 02.03.2018, the Tahsildar, Kalasapakkam in his letter dated 26.08.2013 and the letter dated 25.01.2010 addressed by the Sub-Registrar, Kadaladi to the President of Dalita Sangharsha Federation, Bhadravathi, and to submit a report in this regard to DCVC. Such an order, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be found either arbitrary or without any basis. If it is

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:5678 WP No. 19369 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24268 of 2021

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

found that the information and the material placed by the petitioners to be genuine, that enures to the benefit of the petitioners, clearing all the aspersions cast on them once and for all. The process adopted by the respondent No. 2 authority, cannot therefore be found to be irregular or illegal.

¶94

In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit to intervene at this juncture. Keeping open all the contentions to be urged even as reserved by the respondent No. 2, these petitions are disposed of directing the authorities to give effect to the impugned order, more particularly the Inspector of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell to obtain the information as directed in the impugned order.

¶95

11 After affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners order shall be passed within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till Appropriate orders are passed as directed above, no precipitative action shall be taken.

¶96

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶97

CKL/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri. a Velumurugan v. the District Caste Veification Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. a Velumurugan v. the District Caste Veification Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Primrose Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

N.Ramaswamy Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Kavitharaj Vs the Ministry of Public Works Department

Smt. Ningamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri H S Krishnamachar Vs the Government of India

Jolarpettai Mathan Lara Vs State of Karnataka