IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.3013 OF 2018 (GM-CC) BETWEEN:
Dr. J. RAJESHA S/O LATE SRI JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT. SRI. RANGARAJAPURA T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571124.
(By Mr. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M. ADV.) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-570005.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR AND MEMBER SECRETARY DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICE, MYSURU DISTRICT Dr. BABU JAGAJEENARAM BHAVAN PADUVARAHALLI, MYSURU-570005.
*3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (DCRE), NO.42/A VINAYA AVENUE, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, MYSORE-570011.
(By Mr. C. JAGADISH, SPL. COUNSEL FOR R1 & R2) . PETITIONER . RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for relevant records pertaining to the case. Quash the proceedings initiated by the respondents vide Annexure-D as the same is illegal, * INSERTED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 27.03.2019 arbitrary and besides being without the authority of law and jurisdiction & etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Subramanya Bhat M., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.C.Jagadish, learned Special counsel for the respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for cancellation of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has already been verified by the Verification Committee and therefore, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction to review the order.
5. On the other hand, learned Special counsel for the respondents submits that as on today, no order against the petitioner has been passed and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is premature. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted liberty to file a petition before the respondent No.1 with regard to maintainability of the proceedings before it and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the petition preferred by the petitioner in the light of the order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.604/2007.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to decide the petition preferred by the petitioner by a speaking order in the light of the order dated 26.11.2012 passed in W.A.No.604/2007 (GM-CC) within a period of one month from today before proceeding further with the matter.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
7. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV