Karnataka High Court
H.M. Veerayya vs The Deputy Commissioner on 11 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.15635/2020(GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
1. H. M. VEERAYYA
S/O H M SANNA VEERAYYA
AGE 48, OCC-AGRICULTURE
MUDDENOOR VILLAGE
HOOVINAHADAGALI
TQ HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY-583219.
2. K H M SHIVAPRAKASH
S/O RAJASEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
OCC-AGRICULTURE
R/A HALAGUNDI VILLAGE
TQ HADAGALI
DISTRICT BELLARY-583219.
3. K M VISHWARADHAYA
S/O SIDDAYYA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC-AGRICULURE
R/O NO.477:9, 9TH WARD
HOOVINAHADAGALI
DISTRICT BELLARY-583219.
4. K M RAVINDRASWAMY
S/O LATE K M CHANNAVERAYYA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC-AGRICULTURE
R/O 3 WARD, HIREHADAGALI
TQ HADAGALI, DIST BELLARY-583219.
2
5. A M BASAVARAJ
S/O A M GURUBASAYYA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O 380, 2ND MAIN, 31ST WARD
N C COLONY, HOSPET
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADV.)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELLARY DISTRICT
BELLARY-583101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HOSPET SUB-DIVISION
DAM ROAD, HOSPET-583201.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
HOOVINAHADAGALI-583219
DISTRICT BELLARY
4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CRE CELL PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE-1
5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
CRE CELL, SARASWATHI BADAVANE
NEAR DABA STOP
DAVANAGERE
6. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
CRE CELL, BRAHMPUR
KALABURAGI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. C. JAGADISH, SPL. COUNSEL FOR R4 TO R6)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURES C, C1, C2, C3 AND C4
PASSED BY R1 DATED 16.09.2019 AND THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
R5 DATED 13.03.2020 AT ANNEXURE-D AND NOTICE DATED
18.12.2019 VIDE ANNEXURES D1 TO D4 OF R5, RESPECTIVELY
AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also learned counsel for respondents and learned HCGP.
2. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2019 at Annexure -C, C1, C2, C3 and C4 passed by the first respondent filed this writ petition.
3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners belongs to Beda Jangam caste and they have applied for the caste certificate with respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has rejected the application filed by the petitioners. The petitioners 4 aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3 preferred appeal to the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has rejected the said appeal. The petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3 and also confirmed by respondent No.2 preferred a revision petition before the respondent No.1. During the pendency of the revision petition, respondent No.1 has referred the matter to the respondent Nos. 4 and
5. Pending consideration of revision petition, the Deputy Commissioner has issued impugned notification dated 13.03.2020 and 18.12.2019 calling for certain clarification from respondent No.5. In response to the said communication, respondent No.5 has issued notice to the petitioners to appear before him for the purpose of an enquiry.
4. The petitioners aggrieved by the Annexure- C and D filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the same.
5
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Annexure -D is the notice for enquiry. Therefore, the same cannot be question in this writ petition and the said notice is issued for the purpose of verifying the status of the petitioners caste and therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. It is not in dispute that the revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 4 (6) of the Act is pending consideration before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is required to consider the revision petition strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and a separate enquiry cannot be held at this stage. Reading of Sub rule(4) of Rule 7 of the Karnataka SC/ST and other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.,) Rules, 1992 would go to show that, it is only the committee after the enquiry referred to in the sub - rules (2) and (3) finds that the 6 claim is doubtful, then they can refer the matter to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement for detailed investigation. Therefore, respondent at this stage cannot exercise such a power. The impugned communication as per Annexure-C and D not sustainable in law. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in part.
The impugned communication notice at Annexure-C dated 13.02.2018 and Annexure-D dated 18.12.2019 and Annexure D1 to D4 are quashed.
Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner shall consider revision petition pending before him strictly in accordance with the provisions of Acts and Rules.
Sd/-
JUDGE MNS/