IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.51972 OF 2016 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
M.D. PRAKASH S/O LATE M. DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.33, 2ND CROSS, C.V.ROAD, BANNIMANTAP, MYSURU-570019.
(By Mr. RAVI H.K. ADV.) … PETITIONER AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AT THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, NO.42/A, VINAYAMARGA, SIDDHARTHANAGARA, MYSURU-570 011.
2. POLICE INSPECTOR DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, MYSURU-570 011.
3. K. BHARATH KUMAR S/O K. SHEKARAPPA, R/AT NO.102, L.I.G. 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570 011.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. SHOWRI H.R. ADV., FOR C/R3 Mr. C. JAGADISH, SPL. COUNSEL FOR R1 & R2) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the enquiry proceedings initiated by R-1 & 2 against the petitioner at annex-q dated 31.08.2016 on the basis of the complaint of the R-3. Grant an interim order to stay the enquiry proceedings initiated by the R-1 & 2 against the petitioner vide annex-q dated 31.08.2016 on the basis of the complaint of R-3 and all further proceedings in pursuance of the same and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Ravi H.K., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.C.Jagadish, learnes Special counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Sri.Showri H.R., learned counsel for the respondent No3.
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 seeks quashment of order dated 31.08.2016 by which enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has been initiated on the basis of the complaint submitted by respondent No.3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the caste of the petitioner is already verified by respondent No.2 and under Section 4-C(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments) Act, 1990, an enquiry with regard to the caste of the petitioner can be initiated either at the instance of the employer or an educational institution or by the petitioner himself. It is further submitted that at the instance of respondent No.3, no enquiry can be initiated with regard to the caste certificate of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Special counsel submitted that initially an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, which was not in accordance with law. Therefore, a second enquiry has been initiated and the report has to be submitted to the District Caste Verification Committee and in case an order is passed against the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has supported the submissions made by the learned Special counsel.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Section 4-C(2) of the Act reads as under:
“4-C Verification of Caste Certificate and Income and Caste Certificate – (1) The State Government shall constitute one or more verification committees for each district consisting of such person or persons as may be prescribed for verification of caste certificate and income and caste certificate issued under Section 4-A or Section 4-B.
(2) Any person who has obtained a caste certificate or an income and caste certificate under Section 4-A or 4-B or the Appointing Authority or any authority making admission to a course of study in the University or any Educational Institution may make an application to the verification committee in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed for issue of a validity certificate.
(3) The verification Committee may after holding such enquiry as it deems fit within thirty days from the date of the application either grant a validity certificate in a prescribed form or reject the application.”
6. From perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is evident that initiation of the enquiry at the instance of respondent No.3 is not permissible in law. Therefore, the impugned notice contained in Annexure-Q dated 31.08.2016 is hereby quashed. Needless to state that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be at liberty to take action against the petitioner to ascertain the genuineness of the caste certificate issued in his favour in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV