IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.52420/2019(GM-CC) BETWEEN:
SHRI. G. KARUNAKARAN S/O LATE GOVINDAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.22 (SWARNA WARD) R/A ‘PADMALAYA’, VIVEK NAGAR, ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F., KOLAR-563122.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGUPATHY K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M. S. BUILDING, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.
3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR, KOLAR-563101.
4 . THE TAHSILDAR K. G. F. TALUK, ROBERTSONPET, KGF, KOLAR-563122.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C. JAGADISH, SPECIAL COUNSEL) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE DATED 02.12.2019 INITIATED BY THE R-3 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner in the present writ petition has sought for writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 2.12.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent bearing case No.ADM.CR/15/2019-20 as per Annexure-A.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally he belongs to Adi Dravida (Scheduled Caste) by birth. His parents, his brothers and their kids and also the kids of the petitioner had obtained Adi Dravida (Scheduled Caste) certificate. Further, the caste of the petitioner’s father has been reflected as Adi Dravida (Scheduled Caste) in his service records. Even the petitioner’s mother had also obtained Adi Karnataka (Scheduled Caste) caste certificate in the year 1990. Further, the school records of the petitioner and his brothers also reflect their caste as Adi Dravida (Scheduled Caste). The petitioner thereafter obtained the manual caste certificate issued by the 4th respondent and had filed his nomination from the Geetha ward reserved for Scheduled Caste for the Councillor elections held on 2001. The petitioner thereafter had obtained the Adi Dravida (Scheduled Caste) caste certificate from the 4th respondent issued for life time and he had also further obtained the Adi Dravida (Scheduled Caste) certificate issued for election purpose on 25.10.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his nomination from Ward No.22 (Swarna Nagar Ward) reserved for Scheduled Caste for the post of Councillor and was duly elected on 24.11.2019. Shri N. Harish Babu who had lost elections against the petitioner from Ward No.22 had filed a false complaint before the 4th respondent which was forwarded to the 3rd respondent on 2.12.2019. The 3rd respondent without verifying the genuineness of the allegations and though there were no supporting documents in support of the allegations made in the complaint, had blindly issued the notice to the petitioner as per Annexure-A dated 2.12.2019. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri Raghupathy .K, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition contended that the impugned notice issued by the 3rd respondent is totally without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. He would further contend that the caste certificate issued by the jurisdictional authorities in favour of the petitioner has reached finality and the said certificate is used only for the purpose of election. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have issued the impugned notice. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri C. Jagadeesh, learned Special Counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the impugned notice issued by the 3rd respondent, when the caste certificate issued by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner is only for the purpose of contesting the election and the same cannot be re-opened by the Assistant Commissioner.
6. In view of the above fair submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, without adverting to the merits and demerits of the case, it is suffice to quash the impugned notice issued by the 3rd respondent on the ground that he has no jurisdiction. The impugned notice issued without canceling the original caste certificate issued by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner, is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 2.12.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed. In case the petitioner has obtained caste certificate based on the false information, it is open for the competent authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-