IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.16668/2018(GM-CC) BETWEEN:
SRI. ANIL KUMAR, S/O CHIKKAMADU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT 5938, 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA, MYSURU-5700010 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RUKHIABI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANGAMESH R. B., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
2 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICE, DR. BABU JAGJEEVAN RAM BHAVAN, PADUVARAHALLI, MYSURU-570001.
3 . THE DY.COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570001.
4 . DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU-570001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DY. COMMSISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AS PER NOTICE DATED 21.12.2017 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings as per notice dated 21.12.2017 vide Annexure-A issued by the second respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to ‘Nayaka’ community and as such he obtained caste certificate from the Tahsildar and contested the elections on the basis of the said certificate. When things stood thus, one S.H.Subash, his political opponent filed a complaint on 10.11.2014 before the 4th respondent–District Caste Verification Committee seeking for verification of petitioner’s caste. On the basis of the said complaint, 4th respondent has issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before the 4th respondent for verification of the caste certificate and is continuing the proceedings. It is contended that the complaint made against the petitioner is politically motivated. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Ms.Rukhiabi, counsel for Sri R.B.Sangamesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition, contended that the notice issued by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner to appear before the 4th respondent is totally without jurisdiction. The 4th respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings since the petitioner has not used the caste certificate for education or employment purpose. She further contended that the provisions of Section 4-A and 4-C of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, clearly states that under the Act the Committee can verify the Caste certificate if it is used for educational and employment purposes. Therefore, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and sought to allow the writ petition. Learned counsel sought to rely on the dictum of this Court in the case of S.Kiran Kumar vs. The State and others made in W.P.No.855/2019.
5. Per contra, Sri C.Jagadish, learned Special Additional Government Advocate for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order and contended that though the provisions of the Act authorizes the District Caste Verification Committee to verify the caste certificate when it is used for educational and employment purpose, it has been misused by the petitioner by using it for contesting the election and also got elected, though he does not belong to ‘Nayaka’ community. This is nothing but misuse of the provisions of the ‘Act’. It is high time for the Central Government to amend the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The submission is placed on record.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner obtained caste certificate to the effect that he belongs to ‘Nayaka’ community and contested the election and became MLA of Heggadadevanakote. One S.H.Subash, political opponent of the petitioner made a complaint to the 4th respondent seeking verification of the petitioner’s caste.
Though the complainant is not made as party to the proceedings, the question is, whether the 2nd respondent has got power to issue notice and investigate the caste of the petitioner, when he has not misused the certificate by using it for education or employment purpose as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 4A and 4C of the ‘Act’.
7. It is not in dispute that this Court in identical circumstances, in W.P.No.855/2019 (supra) has already laid down the law that the District Caste Verification Committee has no jurisdiction to hold enquiry with regard to caste certificate if it is not used for education or employment purpose and the said order has reached finality. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be sustained.
8. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 21.12.2017 issued by the second respondent is quashed as without jurisdiction. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take action against the petitioner, if so advised only, in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm