IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.51881/2019(GM-CC) SRI G. SARAVANAKUMAR S/O LATE. GOVIND SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO. 23, MASJID ROAD, ANDERSONPET, KGF TALUK, KOLAR 563113.
...Petitioner (BY SRI VINAYAKA B, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRTARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001 2 . THE TAHSILDAR KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563122.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C JAGADISH, SPECIAL COUNSEL) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS VIDE NOTICE DATED 17.11.2019 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE R-2 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner in the above writ petition has sought to quash the impugned proceedings dated 17.11.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-A.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he belongs to Nayaka community which is categorized as scheduled tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. He had applied for issuance of caste certificate before the Tahsildar in the year 2014. The Tahsildar, acting under Section 3 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, (‘Act’ for short) issued the caste certificate in Form-D after satisfying himself of the caste of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for caste certificate for the purpose of contesting the election to the local body. The 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, considered the petitioner’s application and issued the caste certificate dated 24.10.2019. It is further case of the petitioner that, he contested the election held to the post of member of Municipal Council, K.G.F. from 33rd ward Andersonpet, which was reserved for scheduled tribe category and he got elected and was declared as returned candidate by the election officer. The 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, based on a complaint made by a third party, issued the impugned notice contemplating verification of the petitioner’s caste. Therefore, 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 B.Vinayaka, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, once the Tahsildar issued the caste certificate after conducting enquiry, subsequent notice issued for enquiry is nothing but review, which is impermissible under law. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the Tahsildar is totally without jurisdiction. He further contended that the caste certificate was issued as long back as in the year 2014 and till the petitioner got elected to the Municipal Council, there was no dispute. Only on the basis of the complaint made by a third party, the impugned notice has been issued. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
5. Sri C.Jagadish, learned Special Counsel for the respondents, rightly and fairly submits that, once the Tahsildar issued the caste certificate by making enquiry, subsequent notice for verification is not permissible, unless the first caste certificate is obtained by playing fraud. He submits that, under Section 4F of the ‘Act’, the Deputy Commissioner may at any time either suo moto or on an application made to him within the prescribed period, call for and examine the records relating to any decision made or order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 4A or the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4B, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality of such order. The said submission is placed on record. In view of the above, the impugned notice dated 17.11.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.
6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Notice dated 17.11.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents or the authority concerned to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm