IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.17776/2016 (GM-CC) BETWEEN:
SMT. MAMATHA, W/O. K M KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT KARIGANA HALLI, HIKKERI HOBLI, KRISHNARAJA PET TALUK, MANDYA - 571 426. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADV.) AND:
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 426.
2. THE TAHSILDAR KRISHNARAJA PET TALUK, KRISHNARAJA PET MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 426.
3. SRI RAVINDRA, S/O ANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT RAMANAHALLI, KRISHNARAJA PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 426. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C. JAGADISH, SPL. G.A. FOR R1 & R2; SRI C. N. RAJU, ADV. & SRI. A. S. MAHESHA, ADV. FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DTD.11.3.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-A to the petition.
2. In that light, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the order dated 28.02.2017 passed in W.P.No.2704/2017 and connected petition wherein, this Court in similar circumstances has held as under:
“2. The petitioner, in W.P.
No.2704/2017 has assailed the said order dated 02.05.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner canceling the caste certificate. Against such order, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a revision to the Deputy Commissioner as provided under Section 4(F) of the Karnataka SC/ST and other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc) Act, 1990. Hence leaving open all contentions of the petitioner herein, the petitioner is relegated to the alternative remedy of revision. Interim order granted by this Court shall however ensure to the benefit of the petitioner till the Revision Petition is filed and taken up for consideration by the Revisional Authority subject to the condition that such Revision Petition is filed within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
3. In that view, in the instant petition also, the petitioner is to be relegated to the remedy of filing a revision petition in terms as ordered therein and the benefit of the interim order is to be extended to the petitioner, till the revision petition is taken up for consideration by the Revisional Authority. All contentions of the parties on merits are left open.
4. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the liberty of filing the revision petition before the Revisional Authority which shall be considered on merits without reference to delay. The interim order shall remain in force, till the revision petition is taken up for consideration by the Revisional Authority. This is however subject to the condition that the petitioner shall file the revision petition within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. Registry to return the papers, if any sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sd/- JUDGE ST