IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.6226 OF 2019 (GM-CC) Between:
Kumari. Ayushi S.P, Aged 8 years, R/at Sidiya, Herekodige (Post), Koppa Taluk, Chikamangaluru-577 126, Rep. by Father and natural guardian, Prashanth Kumar.S.S. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Ajit Kalyan, Advocate for Smt. R.Rashmi Sagar, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, Vikasa Soudha, Vidhana Veedhi, Bengaluru-560 001, By its Principal Secretary.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga Sub Division, Shivamogga-577 201.
3. Tahsildar, Thirthahalli Taluk, Thirthahalli-577 432.
(By Sri.C.Jagadish, Spl.Counsel) ... Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement at Annexure-E rejecting to issue the Caste Certificate to the petitioner and direct the R-3 to issue the Caste Certificate to the petitioner as per the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the R-2 at Annexure-C.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Mr.Ajit Kalyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. C.Jagadish, learned Special Counsel for the respondents.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner, inter alia, is challenging the validity of the endorsement dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Tahsildar by which the application for issuance of Caste Certificate has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reason. On the other hand, learned Special Counsel could not point out any reason from the impugned order.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The impugned order reads as hereunder:
“No permission to issue the certificate”
5. It is trite law that even a quasi-judicial authority is required to assign reasons for passing the order. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme court in ‘VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK’, 2010 (3) SCC 732, reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making process.
6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation, it is evident that the impugned order suffers from vice of application of mind and it is cryptic and arbitrary. The petitioner cannot even be relegated to the alternative remedy as no reason has been assigned in support of the order. The impugned endorsement dated 22.11.2018 is therefore quashed and set aside. The Tahsildar is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today.
Accordingly the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/-