Karnataka High Court
Veeresh vs The State Of Karnataka, on 4 April, 2017
Bench: Vineet Kothari, H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
1
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4 TH
DAY OF APRIL, 2017
R
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT APPEAL NOS.101469-470/2016 (GM-CC)
C/w.
WRIT APPEAL No.101465/2016 (GM-CC)
IN W.A.NOS.101469-470/2016
BETWEEN:
1. VEERESH, S/O. SIDDANNA UNDODI
AGED 33 YEARS
MEMBER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH
KUDALASANGAMA CONSTITUANCY
HUNGUND TALUK
BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587 118
RESIDING AT BELAGALL
HUNGUND TALUK
BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587 112
2. BASAVVA, W/O. KANTEEBASAPPA SHINAGADI
AGED 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
RESIDING AT NAGUR, HUNGUND TALUK
BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587 118
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. S.
SURESH, ADVOCATE)
2
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
RURAL DEVELOPMENT &
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT.,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT DISTRICT
BAGALKOT
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BAGALKOT
4. TAHASILDAR
HUNGUND TALUK
DIST. BAGALKOT
5. SMT. VEENA
W/O. VIJAYANAND KASHAPPANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HAVARAGI
HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DIST 587 118
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.4521
BEHIND K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND
ILKAL, HUNGUND TALUK
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, 587 125
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. S. PATIL, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 - R4;
SRI. V. M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.103198-103199/2016 BY ALLOWING
THE PRAYERS MADE BY THE APPELLANTS IN W.P.NOS.103198-
103199/2016.
3
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
IN W.A.NO.101465/2016
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHAILA
W/O. SRI. MANTAPPAGOUDA NADAGOUDAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHITTAWADGI
TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT 587 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. T. NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. L. M.
CHIDANANDAYYA & HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT DISTRICT
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 101
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT DISTRICT
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 101
4. TAHASILDAR
HUNGUND TALUK
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 101
5. SMT. VEENA
W/O. SRI. VIJAYANAND KASHAPPANAVAR
RESIDING AT NO.4521
BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND
4
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
ILKAL, HUNGUND TQ.
DIST. BAGALKOT 587 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. S. PATIL, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 - R4;
SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 (CP.20102/16);
SRI. V. M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
---
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.29822/2016 BY ALLOWING THE
PRAYERS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN W.P.NO.29822/2016.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.03.2017, COMING ON FOR
PROUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
DR. H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
In W.A.Nos.101469-70/2016
Smt. Pramila Nesargi, Senior Counsel for Mr. S. S.
Suresh, Advocate for appellants
Mr.C. S. Patil, Govt. Advocate for R1 -R4
Mr.V. M. Sheelvant, Advocate for R5
In W.A.No.101465/2016
Sri. M. T. Nanaiah, Senior Counsel for Mr. L. M.
Chidanandayya & Hanumanthreddy Sahukar,
Advocates for appellant
Mr.C. S. Patil, Govt. Advocate for R1 -R4
Mr. R. H. Angadi, Advocate for C/R5
Mr.V. M. Sheelvant, Advocate for R5
5
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
1. The appellants have filed these appeals under
Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, being
aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2016 passed by this
Court in W.P.Nos.103198-103199/2016 C/w.
W.P.No.29822/2016.
2. In their memorandum of appeal, the appellants
have raised common grounds and have stated that the
learned Single Judge in the impugned order has failed to
notice that the writ petitioners had not sought for setting
aside of the election to the post of Zilla Panchayat.
However, the challenge was only with respect to the Caste
Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, in favour of the
respondent No.5. As such, the said matter is in no way
related to the election petition. The appellant has further
stated that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the
writ petitions are not maintainable, was also without any
basis. The learned Single Judge failed to notice that the
6
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
appellant - Smt. Shaila has preferred a separate election
petition in the competent Court. As such, the relief sought
for in the writ petitions is a different relief confining to the
obtaining of the Caste Certificate by the respondent No.5 -
Smt.Veena, fraudulently and in collusion with the
respondent No.4 - Tahasildar. Thus, without appreciating
the scope and ambit of the writ petitions and the relief
claimed therein, the learned Single Judge held that the writ
petitions are not maintainable, which finding was thus
erroneous. With this the appellants have prayed for setting
aside the impugned order and allowing the writ petitions
filed by them.
3. Respondents No.1 to 4 in all these appeals are
being represented by the learned Government Advocate
and respondent No.5 is being represented by her Counsel.
4. Heard the arguments from both sides.
7
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
5. Learned Senior Counsel Smt. Pramila Nesargi,
appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016,
filed by the two citizens of that area, Veeresh and Another,
in her arguments vehemently submitted that the learned
Single Judge failed to make a distinction between an
Election petition and a Petition challenging the fraudulent
functioning of a public servant holding a public office. The
documents on record clearly demonstrates, that issuing of
the Caste Certificate by the 4th respondent - Tahasildar was
only to favour respondent No.5 for political and various
other reasons, which is a gross misuse of his public office.
As such, the writ jurisdiction is the only efficacious remedy
available to challenge such an act of a public servant.
6. Sri. M. T. Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.101465/2016,
supported the arguments addressed on behalf of the other
appellants and further submitted that the appellant being a
8
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
member of Zilla Panchayat and also a voter of the
constituency under dispute, have got locus standi to
challenge the Act of a public servant, who by his misdeeds
has enabled an undeserving candidate to make use of a
Caste and Income Certificate issued by him in contesting
the election. Thus, the very issuance of the certificate by a
public servant being under question, the present appeal
cannot be considered as an Election petition.
7. Sri. C. S. Patil, learned Government Advocate,
representing respondents No.1 to 4, in his arguments
vehemently submitted that the very Act of the appellants
challenging the issuance of the Caste-cum-Income
Certificate in favour of the respondent No.5, is nothing but
challenging the entire election process. In view of Article
243-O of the Constitution of India, no election to any
panchayat can be called in question, except by an Election
petition presented to a competent Authority, in a manner
9
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
provided under the law. As such, the learned Single Judge
has rightly held that the writ petitions are not maintainable.
8. Learned Counsel Sri. V. M. Sheelvant, appearing for
respondent No.5, while strongly advocating for the order
under challenge, submitted that it is a settled principle of
law that an election to any Panchayat, including Zilla
Panchayat, cannot be challenged in any Court, including
High Court, except under an Election petition. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court also has, in several cases, held that election
cannot be challenged in any forum, except under an
Election petition. The very act of the writ petitioners, who
are the present appellants, is nothing but challenging the
candidature of the elected member to Zilla Panchayat, who
is respondent No.5 herein. Thus, it is nothing but an
Election petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. With this he submitted to dismiss the
writ appeals.
10
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
9. The summary of the case under consideration is
that the 4th respondent - Tahasildar, on an application of
the 5th respondent, issued an Income-cum-Caste Certificate
to her, certifying that she belongs to Backward Class B
Group with an annual income of Rs.50,000/-. It appears
that the said respondent No.5, by producing the said
Income-cum-Caste Certificate, contested Zilla Panchayat
election under Backward Class B Women Category, from
Bagalkot District constituency. The appellant in Writ Appeal
No.101465/2016, who also claims to be belonging to
Backward Class B Category and the first and second
appellants in the other writ appeals claiming to be a sitting
member of Zilla Panchayat, Bagalkot and an voter of
Dhannur-18, a constituency under Bagalkot Zilla Panchayat,
respectively, alleging that the Income-cum-Caste Certificate
issued by respondent No.4 - Tahasildar in favour of the
respondent No.5, was a fraudulent and collusive act of 4th
and 5th respondent, at the instance of a sitting MLA, who is
11
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
said to be the husband of the 5th respondent, challenged
the said Caste Certificate in the Writ Petition Nos.103198-
103199/2016 and Writ Petition No.29822/2016, before the
learned Single Judge, with a prayer to issue a writ of
certiorari quashing the Caste Certificate dated 20.01.2016,
vide No.MSC/CR/145/2015-16, issued by the 4th respondent
in favour of the 5th respondent. The learned Single Judge,
after hearing both sides, by his order dated 21.10.2016,
was pleased to dismiss all the three writ petitions holding
that the writ petitions are not maintainable. It is the said
order, the appellants have challenged in these appeals.
Regarding Maintainability:
10. Before proceeding further to analyse the merits
of the petition, at the threshold, the preliminary objection
raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of
the writ petitions and as a consequence of the present
appeals, is to be discussed and analysed.
12
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
11. The writ petitioners, who are the appellants
herein, in their writ petitions have made a prayer for
issuance of a writ order or a direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the Caste Certificate dated 20.01.2016
vide No.MSC/CR/145/2015-16, issued by the 4th respondent
- Tahasildar, Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot District, in favour of
the 5th respondent - Smt. Veena, W/o. Vijayanand
Kashappanavar, Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot District. After
obtaining the said Income-cum-Caste Certificate, which was
produced at Annexures-H and L in the writ petitions before
the learned Single Judge, the beneficiary of the said
Certificate, who is respondent No.5, is said to have made
use of the said document in filing her nomination to the
candidature at Zilla Panchayat membership election in
2016. It is also stated that she became a winning
candidate in the election.
13
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
12. In this background, the respondents vehemently
submitted that in view of the Article 243-O of the
Constitution of India, challenging of an election can be
made only through an Election petition, before the
appropriate Court/Forum. As such, this Court under writ
jurisdiction cannot entertain the election matters.
13. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Smt. Pramila
Nesaragi and learned Senior Counsel Sri. M. T. Nanaiah,
appearing for the appellants in these writ appeals, tried to
distinguish an election petition from the writ petition and
submitted that the prayer made in the writ petitions is only
to quash the Income-cum-Caste Certificate granted by the
4th respondent - Tahasildar, in favour of the 5th respondent,
by throwing to air all the procedure laid down by law, only
with an intention to help the 5th respondent, either for
political purpose or for other reasons, best known to him.
By the said act, the writ petitioners, who are member of the
14
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
Electorate i.e., an voter and another elected member to the
Zilla Panchayat, are aggrieved, since the elected
representative, i.e., 5th respondent, by misusing the public
office and in connivance with a public servant i.e., 4th
respondent was successful in obtaining a false and forged
Income-cum-Caste Certificate fraudulently, which has sent
a very wrong message to the society at large. Therefore,
the writ petition has nothing to do with the election process
or result thereof or with the election petition. Therefore
there is no bar for entertaining the writ petitions, for the
limited purpose of examining the validity of the said
impugned Income-cum-Caste Certificate.
14. Article 243-O of the Constitution of India reads
as below:
"243-O. Bar to interference by courts in
electoral matters - Notwithstanding anything in
this Constitution -
(a) the validity of any law relating to the
delimitation of constituencies or the allotment
15
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
of seats to such constituencies made or
purporting to be made under article 243K,
shall not be called in question in any court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called
in question except by an election petition
presented to such authority and in such
manner as is provided for by or under any Law
made by the legislature of a State."
15. Zilla Panchayat and its constitution is governed
by provisions contained in Chapter X of the Karnataka Gram
Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('Act' for short).
Section 171 of the Act prescribes that the provisions of
Sections 15 and 24 shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect
of election to Zilla Panchayat. Section 15 contains an
express bar against questioning an election except by way
of an election petition. The said provision reads thus:
Election petition.- (1) No election to fill a seat or
seats in a Grama Panchayat shall be called in
question except by an election petition presented on
one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section
(1) of section 19 and section 20 to the 1 [Civil Judge
16
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
(Junior Division)]1 within whose territorial
jurisdiction the panchayat area concerned or the
major portion of the panchayat area concerned is
situate by any candidate at such election or by any
voter qualified to vote at such election together with
a deposit of five hundred rupees as security for
costs, within thirty days from , but not earlier than,
the date of declaration of the result of the election of
the returned candidate at the election, and if the
dates of declaration of the results of the their
election are different, the last of those dates."
Section 171 reads as follows:
"171. Application of certain sections relating to
elections - (1) The provisions of sections 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 shall apply
mutatis mutandis in respect of election to Zilla
Panchayat, the application being to the 1 [Civil Judge
(Senior Division)]1 having jurisdiction and the
deposit as security for costs being two thousand
rupees.
(2) Any person aggrieved by any decision or
order of the 1[Civil Judge (Senior Division)] 1 under
this section may, within thirty days from the date of
such decision or order appeal to the District Judge
17
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
and the decision of the District Judge on such appeal
shall be final."
16. A combined reading of Article 243-O of the
Constitution of India and Sections 15 and 171 of the
Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993,
makes it clear that the election to panchayat can be called
in question only through an election petition, before the
competent Authority. Thus, there is no ambiguity with
respect to the position of law. However, what is required to
be seen in the case on hand is whether the relief sought for
in the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge was
setting aside of the election results or challenging any
election process, thus making it an election petition.
17. The prayer made in W.P.Nos. 103198-
103199/2016 (GM-CC) is as below:
" i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari, quashing the caste
certificate dated 20.01.2016 vide
18
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
No.MSC/CR/145/2015-16, issued by the
respondent No.4 in favour of the respondent
No.5, produced at Annexure-H."
The prayer made in W.P.No.29822/2016 is as below:
" i. Call for the records which ultimately
resulted in issuing Endorsement Annexure A
dated 01.03.2016 bearing No.MSC/CR/2015-16
issued by the 4th respondent.
ii. Issue an order, direction, writ in the nature
of certiorari quashing the Endorsement
Annexure A dated 01.03.2016 bearing
No.MSC/CR/2015-16 issued by the 4th
respondent.
iii. Issue an order, direction, writ in the nature
of quashing the caste certificate dated
20.1.2016 vide Annexure-L issued by the
respondent, as the same is illegal and without
the authority of law.
iv. Direct the respondent to initiate criminal
prosecution against the 5th respondent for
making false declaration in obtaining the Caste
Certificate for contesting election No.18
Dhannur Zilla Panchayat Constituency."
19
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
Neither of the above two sets of writ petitions have
anyway prayed for setting aside the election or to declare
the candidature of respondent No.5 as invalid. There is no
element of prayer, which touches the procedural aspect of
the elections held to the Zilla Panchayat. What is prayed is
only the document which is called an Income-cum-Caste
Certificate issued by the respondent No.4 - Tahasildar,
which document, the respondent No.5 is said to have
obtained fraudulently. It is very important to note at this
juncture that the document challenged, which is the
Income-cum-Caste Certificate dated 20.01.2016 and
bearing No.MSC/CR/145/2015-16, is not a document
confining only for the use of election. It can be observed
that such a certificate of income and caste was otherwise
also being issued by a competent Authority, who is
respondent No.4 - Tahasildar herein, under the Karnataka
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
20
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
Classes (reservation in appointments etc.,) Rules, 1992.
The said certificate can be used for different purposes.
Incidentally, the same certificate could also be used as a
proof of caste and income for contesting the elections to
Zilla Panchayats also. Thus, it cannot be taken that the
impugned Income-cum-Caste Certificate is exclusively a
document for the electoral process only. Therefore,
challenging the said document, though it may as one of its
consequence, have impact in the process of adjudication of
the election petition, by that itself it cannot be called that
should be through an election petition only and not
otherwise. In our view, the learned Single Judge did not
make this thin distinction between an election petition as
such and challenging a document or issuance of a
document, which has no direct bearing on the election
process or its results.
21
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
18. Therefore, we are unable to agree to the main
contention taken up by the respondents that the writ
petitions as well the present writ appeals are not
maintainable and that the appropriate course for the
appellants was to challenge the impugned certificate and
the process of its issuance only through an election petition.
19. The second main contention of the learned
counsel for the respondents is that, the impugned
certificate, which is the Income-cum-Caste Certificate,
issued by the Tahasildar, can only be challenged before the
jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, as such, having an
alternate remedy, the appellants should not have preferred
writ petitions before the High Court. For this argument of
the respondents' side, the response of the appellants' side
was initially that, no provision has been made for any
appeal against the order of the Tahasildar, as such, writ is
the only jurisdiction for them to challenge the impugned
22
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
order. However, after the respondents bringing to the
notice of the Court that the Government has issued a
notification No.RD/AJSR/ADMN/15/15-16 dated
07.10.2015, prescribing the jurisdictional Assistant
Commissioner as the proper Authority to set aside the
Income-cum-Caste Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, the
appellants tried to corroborate their arguments submitting
that, availability of alternative remedy cannot oust the
jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly when the remedy
available under writ jurisdiction is efficacious, speedy and
serving urgent need of the Society.
20. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied
upon a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt.
Raniyamma Vs. M. Hemala Nayaka and Others
reported in ILR 1997 Karnataka 2518. In the said
decision, a Division Bench of this Court, with respect to an
election to Zilla Panchayat, Adyakshya and Upadyaksha
23
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
posts, was pleased to observe that Article 243-O of the
Constitution of India is not a bar to challenge the election of
Adyakshya by way of writ petition.
Alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one
of compulsion. In appropriate cases, in spite of availability
of an alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise
its writ jurisdiction. In Smt.Lalithamma & Another Vs.
Corporation of the City of Bangalore, reported in ILR
1999 Karnataka 3710 (DB), the coordinate Bench of this
Court, comprising Hon'ble Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, C.J. and
Hon'ble Justice V. Gopala Gowda (as his Lordship then
was), was pleased to observe that an alternative remedy is
generally to be exhausted. However, exception to this is in
the cases, where the orders passed is without jurisdiction or
matter involves public interest and also the cases involving
any urgency and available alternative remedy is not
efficacious.
24
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Kerala and Others Vs. M. K. Jose, reported in (2015) 9
SCC 433, was pleased to observe that availability of an
alternative remedy does not affect jurisdiction to exercise
extraordinary powers. However, it is a ground to refuse to
exercise discretion.
In the instant case, though an alternative remedy is
available to the petitioners before the jurisdictional
Assistant Commissioner, facts and circumstance of the
present case as demonstrated is that the matter is of
urgency involving public interest and availing of an
alternative remedy is not efficacious.
21. From the above, it is clear that mere availability
of an alternative remedy cannot take away the writ
jurisdiction, that too in the cases like instant case, wherein
the act of a public servant in issuing a Caste Certificate,
25
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
which is said to be not proper, affects the health of the
Society.
22. For the above reasons, we are also not
agreeable to the arguments of the learned counsel for the
respondents that the writ appeals are not maintainable in
the present case. However, we make it once again clear
that in these appeals, we are confined only to examine the
manner of issuance of the impugned certificate by the
respondent No.4 - Tahasildar and whether he has used his
office diligently in the process and nothing more than this,
including his finding as to the income and caste of
respondent No.5 - Smt. Veena.
On Merits:
23. Now coming to the main aspect of the case,
which is the issuance of an Income-cum-Caste Certificate
by the respondent No.4 - Tahasildar, in favour of the
respondent No.5 - Smt. Veena, which was challenged by
26
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
producing it as a document at Annexure-H, before the
learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.103198-103199/2016
(GM-CC). The other writ petitioner in W.P.No.29822/2016
(GM-CC), also has challenged the same document, but with
different annexure number as Annexure-L.
24. The contention of the appellants is that
respondent No.5 applied for issuance of the said certificate
on 20.01.2016 and the respondent No.4 - Tahasildar issued
the said certificate on the very same day based upon the
alleged reports of the Revenue Inspector and the Village
Accountant said to have been received by him in that
regard. However, the reports of the Village Accountant are
of dated 30.01.2016 and further, the said Village
Accountant was not holding the jurisdiction of Havaragi
village, wherein the respondent No.5 - Smt. Veena is said
to be a permanent resident as on the date of issuance of
the certificate, which is on 20.01.2016. Therefore,
27
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
referring to various documents including the reports and
affidavits said to have been filed by the Village Accountant
Sri. Vijay B. Ronada, the learned Senior Counsels,
appearing for the appellants, tried to demonstrate that only
with an intention to help respondent No.5, the Tahasildar
has issued the certificate ten days prior to he receiving the
necessary reports and thus, has misused his office. As
such, the said document deserves to be quashed.
25. Sri. C. S. Patil, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 and Sri. V. M.
Sheelvant, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5,
in their arguments vehemently submitted that the
application requesting for Income-cum-Caste Certificate
was received by the Tahasildar on 16.01.2016 and he called
for the relevant reports by making an endorsement on it
dated 18.01.2016 and that he received the necessary
reports on 19.01.2016. As such, he has issued the Income-
28
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
cum-Caste Certificate on 20.01.2016. The date shown as
30.01.2016 by the Village Accountant in the relevant
reports is only by his oversight. As such, there is no misuse
of public office as alleged. They also relied upon an
application said to have been submitted by the respondent
No.5 on 16.01.2016 and also an affidavit said to have been
filed by respondent No.4 - Tahasildar by name Sri. Subhash
Sampagavi.
26. The English translation of the application dated
16.01.2016 said to have been filed by the respondent No.5,
copies of which are produced by both sides before this
Court reads as below:
TRANSLATED COPY OF ANNEXURE-H
To:
The Tahasildar
Hungund
Sir,
Sub: Issuance of Caste/Income Certificate for
the purpose of Zilla Panchayat Elections 2015-16
29
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
I, Sri/Smt Veena, wife of Vijayanand
Kashappanavar, Havaragi, filed the following
application.
I intended to contest the Dhannur Zilla
Panchayat election 2016 as one of the candidate and I
am belonging to Hindu Lingayat caste and I required
the Caste Certificate to contest the election. I request
you to issue me the Case Certificate.
Date: 16.1.2016 sd/- V.V.K.
Yours faithfully,
Encl:
1) Court Affidavit
2) School Certificate
3) Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector Report.
On the backside of the said document, an
endorsement is shown to have been made in favour of the
Revenue Inspector, Karadi, which reads as below:
To: Revenue Inspector Karadi
No. 1 Dt.18.01.2016
To:
Revenue Inspector Karadi
It is hereby informed you that to examine the
application filed by the applicant in detail and submit
detailed report along with your clear
recommendation.
Sd/- 18.1
30
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
27. The Income-cum-Caste Certificate which is
challenged in these writ appeals and dated 20.01.2016,
within itself contains an application by the applicant for the
said certificate. The translated version of the said
application dated 20.01.2016, said to have been filed by the
respondent No.5 is reproduced herein below:
TRANSLATED COPY
(In respect of Government Notification No. RDP 5
JIPASA 95 DT. 13.11.1995)
FORMAT OF THE APPLICATION TO BE FILED BY
THE CITIZENS WHO BELONGS TO THE SUB CASE
WHICH COMES UNDER BACKWARD CLASS
CATEGORY A & B.
Tahasildar: Application Sl.No.3
Taluk:
Dist:
Sir,
I Smt. Veena wife of Vijayananda
Kashappanavar, self, intended to contest the
.................................. and I required my Caste
Certificate to contest the said election. I am
enclosing the following information for issuance of
the Caste Certificate to me:
1) Name of the Applicant Veena w/o
and occupation Vijayananda
Kashappanavar
Housewife
31
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
2) Permanent place of
applicant: Village Havaragi
Taluk Hungunda
Dist Bagalkote
A) Applicant name shown Veena Vijayananda
In the Voter List Kashappanavar
3) Applicant Date of Birth 21.8.1981
Age and Place. Davanagere
4) Name of the
Father/Mother/Guardian Agricultural
and Occupation,
Govt./Semi Govt.,
public sector/private
5) Present address of the Havaragi Tq.
Applicant Hungund
6) Permanent address of Joshi Galli, Ilakalla
the Applicant
7) Applicant Caste, sub Hindu Lingayat (3B)
caste and category
8) Whether the parents --
are working in the
Public or Private
Sectors, his pay scale.
9) Whether the applicant
or his father/
mother/parents are
agriculturist, furnish the
details of the lands.
10) Whether the Applicant
or his
father/mother/parents
are the income tax
assessee
11) Whether the Applicant
or his father/mother/
parents are the sales
tax assessee.
32
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the above information
furnished by me are true and correct.
Place: Hungund
Date: 20-1-16 Yours faithfully
Sd/- V.V.K
(Signature of the Applicant)
That the above information are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, if the same is
not correct I am ready to face enquiry.
Self
Signature of father/mother/Guardian
(If father/mother is not alive)
signature of wife/husband
Two local witness signature:
We identify the Applicant and
father/mother/husband/wife and his signature
Witnesses: 1) sd/- Prabhu B. Katagi
2) sd/- Sangappa M Gali
For election purposes
Verifying Certificate
Sri/Smt. Veena Vijayananda Kashappanavar
wife of ......... Self is a resident of Chittavadagi
Village, Bagalkot Dist of Karnataka State
and she belonging to Hindu Lingayat
community and in terms of the Government order
No.RDP 5 GPS 95 (1) Bangalore dated 13.01.1995
she belongs to B Category.
33
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
This Certificate is issued on the basis of the
application of the applicant bearing No.
MSC/CR/145/2015-16 dated 25.1.16. This certificate
is issued on the basis of the report of Revenue
Inspector and Village Accountant and on the basis of
the documents.
Place: Hungund
Date: 20.1.2016 Sd/-20.01.2016
Tahasildar, Hungund
Office Seal
When the Court put a specific question to the
respondents side as to what was the necessity for
respondent No.5/applicant, to file an application dated
16.01.2016, which according to the respondents was not a
prescribed format for the said purpose, the learned
Government Advocate submitted that he would not insist
his point that the application for the Caste Certificate was
filed on 16.01.2016. However, he would submit that the
certificate was issued to the applicant on 20.01.2016. It
can also be noticed that the documents produced by the
appellants along with their memorandum of writ appeal
shows that many of similarly placed contestants of the
34
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
election had applied to the Tahasildar in the prescribed form
only, which is exactly similar to the one applied by the
present respondent No.5 - Smt. Veena and dated
20.01.2016 and none of them are in unprescribed format
with filling up of blanks and in letter format as the one said
to have been filed by the respondent No.5 on 16.01.2016.
From this, though it is very clear that respondent No.5
should have necessarily made an application for Income-
cum-Caste Certificate on 16.01.2016, still the said two
dates i.e., 16.01.2016 and 20.01.2016 would be of not
much importance since the other aspects regarding
processing of the said application by the office of the
Tahasildar is the material aspect under challenge.
28. Assuming that respondent No.4 - Tahasildar
received the application from the respondent No.5 on
16.01.2016 and endorsed the same to the Revenue
Inspector for necessary reports on 18.01.2016, then the
35
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
Tahasildar would have issued the certificate only after he
receiving the report. The impugned certificate within itself
shows that the said certificate has been issued based upon
the reports of the Revenue Inspector and the Village
Accountant. The appellants have produced the copies of
the reports of the Village Accountant and the Government
Advocate for the respondents has produced the originals of
the same. A perusal of those reports reveals certain
astonishing or shocking facts which are as follows:
i. It is not in dispute that one Sri. Vijaya B. Ronada,
the Village Accountant, has submitted the reports
through the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector for
processing the application of respondent No.5
further. Those reports mainly includes a
statement of respondent No.5, Yield (Production)
Certificate, Panchanama (Mahazer), Verification
Certificate and Report of the Village Accountant.
36
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
English translation copies of those documents
produced by the appellants, correctnes of which
translations are not disputed by the respondents,
are reproduced here below:
TRANSLATED COPY OF ANNEXURE K
STATEMENT
I Smt., Veena wife of Vijayananda
Kashappanavar, aged about 34 years, Occupation
Housewife residing at Havaragi do hereby solemnly
affirm as follows:
I am the permanent resident of Havaragi. It is
true that I have filed an application for issuance of
certificate for the purpose of Zilla Panchayat. In my
house 02 adult and 02 children and totally 04
members residing in my house. I am
having own house. My family having 20 Acres 19
Gunta of land in Havaragi. I am having the land
20.19 Acres of land and I have not accepted the
release of land measuring 5.10 acres in my name.
My husband is having 43.32 Acres at Belagalla and
Hungunda and the same has been given to SRK
Sugudda Pvt Ltd and the same is declared under
Declaration and filed and in the revenue records
there is no changes are made in respect of the name
the same is submitted for your further course of
action.
In my family members of family are
working/not working in government/semi
government. My family total annual income is
‡150,000/- (altered) and my case is Hindu Lingayat.
`$
7
37
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
Therefore I request you to issue Caste Certificate to
contest the Zilla Panchayat election and the same is
written.
Before me
Sd/- 30.01.2016 Before me
Vijay B. Ronada Sd/- Sd/-
Village Accountant Revenue Inspector Applicant
PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE
VILLAGE: HAVARAGI TALUK: HUNGUND
1 Name and full address of Veena W/o Vijayanand
the Applicant Kashappanavar
2 For whom (name of the Self
person)
3 For what purpose this For Election purposes
certificate required.
4 Relationship with the Self
Applicant/s
5 Details of land 20 Acre 19 gunta
Village Block/ Extent Food Bhagayat Self
Sy.No. Cultivation
Havaragi 16/P 5.10 10.00 Bhagayat Self
57/1 9.27 20.00 Dry
78/P 5.22 08.50 Dry
Total 20.19 38.50
38
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
Details of Family That the land measuring 20.19
6 (a) Husband:1 Acres of standing in the name of
(b) Wife: 1 Smt. Veena Vijayanand
(c) Children: 2 Kashappanavar and she has not
accepted the release of land
measuring 5.10 acres in her
favour and her husband and
legislature Sri. Vijayanand
Kashappanavar is having 43.32
Acres and the same has been
given to SRK Sugudda Pvt Ltd
and the same is declared under
Declaration and filed and in the
revenue records there is no
changes are made in respect of
the name the same is submitted
for your further course of action.
7 Working member
8 Pay scale And Salary
9 Details of the
employment and
place
10 Other details
11 Whether income tax
assesse
12 Whether sales tax
assessee
13 Annual Income From Agriculture `$750,000/-
‡1
(altered)
Signature of Applicant
Verified by:
Sd/-30.01.2016
Sd/-
Vijaya B. Ronada
Signature Revenue Inspector
Village Accountant
39
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
TRANSLATED COPY
PANCHANAMA (MAHAZER)
Under the instructions of the undersigned
Havaragi Village Panchayat Panchas this Mahazar is
written.
That the Applicant Smt. Veena wife of
Vijayananda Kashappanavar filed an application for
grant of Caste Certificate for the purpose of Zilla
Panchayat Election and the same as discussed and
the applicant is the residents of our village and as
shown in the Family Hiduvali his family having 04
members and the applicant is belonging to Hindu
Lingayat. In the family .... Members are/not
employees. His family is having 20 acres 19 guntas
land and she is housewife and no members are
working as Class 1 and Class 2 employees. Members
are paying/not paying tax. Therefore there is no
objection issue Certificate to the Applicant and the
same is written. That the land measuring 20.19 Acres
is standing in the name of Smt. Veena Vijayanand
Kashappanavar and she has not accepted the release
of land measuring 5.10 acres in here favour and her
husband and legislature Sri Vijayanand
Kashappanavar is having 43.32 Acres an d the same
has been given to SRK Sugudda Pvt Ltd and the same
is declared under Declaration and filed and in the
revenue records there is no changes are made in
respect of the name the same is submitted for your
further course of action.
40
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
PANCHAS
Sl. Names Occupation Age Signa-
No. ture
1. Amarappa T. Vasanageri Agriculturist 65 Sd/-
2. Devappa C. Kattimani Agriculturist 41 Sd/-
3. Shivalingaiah G. Hiremat Agriculturist 37 Sd/-
4. Mahantappa M. Gashi Agriculturist 40 Sd/-
5. Shivamurthaiah B. Agriculturist 44 Sd/-
Shivamurthy Mat
Sd/- Verified by
Signature of Applicant Sd/-
Vijaya B. Ronada
Sd/- Village Accountant
Revenue Inspector
TRANSLATED COPY
VERIFYING LETTER
INFORAMTIONS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE
ACCOUNTANT
As per the Karnataka Government order No.RD
251 BCA 940 dated 31.1.1995 and in terms of Article
15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitutions of India, in order
to get the reservations in Education and appointment,
in case if the land/immovable properties or
employment owned by the father/mother/parents or
husband/wife of the Applicant
41
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
1 Name of the Applicant Smt. Veena
W/o.Vijayanand
Kashappanavar
Caste: Hindu
Sub Caste: Lingayat
2 Name and address of the
Father/mother/guardian of
the applicant:
3 Category belonging to 2A +
2B & 3A+3B
(a) If they are 2nd Grade 20 Acres 19 Guntas
Government officer (Pay
Scale Rs. 2050-3950) or
they are in equivalent scale
(b) If they are in Government
Service or Private,
Industries or any other post
(c) If they are Doctors,
Advocate, Chartered
Accountant, Income tax
consultant, Dental doctors,
Engineers or Architect in
occupation.
(d) If they are income tax
assessee.
(e) If they are Sale tax
assessee.
(a) If they have 8 Hectares of 20 Acres 19 Guntas
dry land or equivalent wet
land,water source land (on
Land Reforms Act).
(b) Whether the father or From Agriculture
mother or guardian are in `$
‡150,000/- (altered)
7
government service and
their pay scales
Sd/- Verified by
Signature of Applicant Sd/- 30.01.2016
Vijaya B. Ronada
Village Accountant
42
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
TRANSLATED COPY OF ANNEXURE J
VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT REPORT
Sub: Issuance of Caste Certificate to
Smt. Veena wife of Vijayanand
Kashappanavar, Havaragi, for election
That the Applicant Smt. Veena wife of
Vijayananda Kashappanavar filed an application
for grant of Caste Certificate for the purpose of
Zilla Panchayat Election and the same as
discussed and issued endorsement.
In the family of the Applicant, 02 are elder
and 02 are children and total the total members
in the family is 04. To the applicant family, there
is a land measuring 20.19 Acres at Havaragi.
That the applicant has own house. That the
Annual income of the Applicant family is
‡150,000/- (altered). In the family of the
`$
7
Applicant, the members are working in the
Government or not. That the caste of the
applicant is Hindu Lingayat. Therefore the report
for issuance of the Caste Certificate to the
Applicant for the purpose of Zilla Panchayat
Election.
That the land measuring 20-19 gunta is
standing in the name of Smt.Veena Vijayananda
Kashappanavar and out of that 5-10 acres
released in her favour is not accepted and that
the land measuring 43-32 acres in Belagilla and
Hungund are standing in the name of her
husband Sri Vijayananda Kashappanavar
Legislator the same are released to SRK
Sugudda Pvt. Ltd for that a declaration is
enclosed and there is no changes are made in
43
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
the revenue records standing in his name
Submitted for your furthers action.
3
1 .0
9 .01.2016 Sd/-30.01.2016
(It appears that date 30 Sd/-- Village Accountant
is overwritten as 19) Revenue Inspector (Vijay B. Ronada)
Even according to the respondents, the
certificate was issued by the Tahasildar based
upon the reports submitted by the Village
Accountant. According to the respondents, all the
reports submitted by the Village Accountant were
on 19.01.2016, however, by oversight, Village
Accountant has put the date as 30.01.2016.
Respondent No.4 - Sri. Subhash S. Sampagavi,
Tahasildar of Havargeri Taluk, has also filed his
affidavit in the writ petition stating that he did
not notice that the Village Accountant Sri. Vijay B.
Ronada had put the date as 30.01.2016 instead of
19.01.2016. On the contrary, the said Village
Accountant Sri. Vijay B. Ronada too has filed his
affidavit. In the said affidavit, he has clearly and
44
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
categorically stated that he was placed in-charge
of Havaragi Saja by order dated 23.01.2016. As
such, he took charge of Havaragi Saja village on
25.01.2016. He has clearly stated that he
verified the application with annexures filed by
Smt. Veena - respondent No.5 and conducted
local enquiry and submitted his reports to the
Tahasildar on 30.01.2016. He has also stated
that he had made two corrections in the report
submitted by him and has put initials, in respect
of other corrections in the certificates, he has no
knowledge and has not put any signatures.
When we analyse the affidavits of these two
officials and perused the documents, it is clear
that the author of the documents himself has
stated in his affidavit that the documents
reproduced above, which are the reports prepared
by him as a Village Accountant, have all been
45
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
submitted by him to the Tahasildar only on
30.01.2016. The said Village Accountant in all
those documents, below his signature has
candidly put the dates as 30.01.2016. Even
though the Revenue Inspector too put his
signatures, he has not mentioned the date of his
signature. Interestingly, the report by the Village
Accountant, reproduced above as the last
document, though shows the date as 30.01.2016
beneath the signature of the Village Accountant,
but on the left side of it, in the place meant to
mention the date, it is clear that the original date,
which was 30.01.2016, has been altered and
made to show as 19.01.2016. Added to this,
the income of the respondent No.5, though
originally appears to have been shown as either
`7,50,000/- or `1,50,000/-, is subsequently
changed to `50,000/- only in figures, which is also
46
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
not authenticated by the author of the document
i.e., Village Accountant. On a perusal of this
document in the original record produced before
us, we see an overwriting by rewriting sign ` over
first figure of the amount of `7,50,000/- or
`1,50,000/- to make it appear as `50,000/- only.
ii. According to the appellants, on 19.01.2016,
Village Accountant Sri.Vijay B. Ronada was not at
all in-charge of Havaragi Saja village. It was only
by virtue of the order dated 23.01.2016, he took
the charge of said village on 25.01.2016. As
such, there is no possibility of him submitting the
report on 19.01.2016, when he was not in-charge
of the said village. The respondents, more
particularly, respondents No.1 to 4, to overcome
this allegation, have got respondent No.4 -
Tahasildar to file his affidavit. In the said affidavit,
47
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
he has stated that on 19.01.2016, since the
regular Village Accountant of Havaragi Saja village
was on half day leave, his office had made
arrangement to give charge of said village to
Ronada and as such, the said Ronada has
submitted his report to the office on 19.01.2016.
The said statement, on its plain reading itself
makes it not trustworthy is for the reasons that;
a) Generally when an official like Village
Accountant goes on leave for half a day, an
in-charge arrangement will not be made
unless there would be some urgency. No
reasons for making in-charge arrangement
for such a short duration is shown by the
Tahasildar.
b) No in-charge arrangement will be made
without a written order/notification to that
effect. In the instant case, had there been
any such written document placing Sri. Vijay
B. Ronada, as in-charge for half a day on
48
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
19.01.2016, nothing had prevented the
office of the Tahasildar to produce those
documents, which he has not done.
iii. The process of preparation of reports
submitted by the Village Accountant involves a lot
of exercise behind it including visiting the spot,
recording the statement of the applicant, drawing
mahazer/ panchanama, preparing Yield/Production
Certificate etc., All those exercises would be very
difficult to be completed within half a day by an in-
charge official in a different village, which is not his
regular jurisdictional area. As such, it cannot be
believed that all those reports were prepared and
submitted within half a day working hours by a
Village Accountant on 19.01.2016.
iv. The appellants in W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
have produced at Annexure-L, a copy of the official
memorandum of the office of the Tahasildar,
49
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
Hungund dated 23.01.2016 and its English
translation. The said English translation is
produced hereinbelow:
TRANSLATED COPY OF ANNEXURE L
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
(REVENUE DEPARMENT)
OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR, HUNGUND
Tel.No.08351-26108 email:[email protected]
No.Staff/CR-75/15-16 Hungund Dated 23.01.2016
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM:
Sub: Regarding promotion given to Second Division
Clerk/Village Accountant of the Revenue
Department to First Division Clerk and equivalent
posts - Reg.
Ref: Order of Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot bearing
No.RD:Staff:CR-235/14-15 Dt.16.01.2016.
With reference to the above subject, as per the
order referred to above, the Second Division
Clerk/Village Accountant of this office is promoted to
the post of First Division Clerk and transferred to the
placed mentioned herein below and therefore passed an
order to relief the said staff from the duty from this
office today at PM/AM on 23.01.2016 and directed the
said staff to take charges immediately to the posts
where they have posted immediately.
50
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
Sl. Name of Staff Post Promoted post and place
No.
1 2 3 4
1 Smt. G. M. Muchhandi SDC FDC Post fell vacant in this
office
2 Sri. L. N. Mirejkar VA To the office of Chief
Manager, LA and
PuPuKMYo Bagalkot
3 Sri. H. M. Shivanagi VA FDC fell vacant in the
office of Asst.
Commissioner Bagalkot
4 Smt. A. R. Kulkarni SDC To the office of Chief
Manager LA and
PuPuKMYo Bagalkot
5 Sri. J. S. Chinivalar VA FDC fell vacant in the
office of Tahasildar
Badami
6 Sri. S. S. Mundevadi VA FDC fell vacant in the
office of Tahasildar
Badami
This order will come with immediate effect.
Sd-23/1
Tahasildar, Hungund
Copy:
To:
1) Sri. L. N. Mirejkara VA
2- To handover the charge of Hireothageri Saja to Sri. V. N.
Meti and submit report to this office.
2) Sri. H. M. Shivanagi V.A.
2/- To handover gthe charge of Karagi Revenue Inspector
post to Sri. I. B. Balagavi Revenue Inspector and handover
the charges of Havaragi Saza Register to Sri. V. B. Ronada
and submit a report to this office.
3) Sri. J. S.Chinivalara V.A.
2/- To hand over the charge of Bilapura Saja Register to Sri.
M. M. Tuppada V. A. and submit a report to this office.
51
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
4) Sri. S. A. Mundevadi V.A.
2/- To hand over the Register of Kadivala Inam Saja to Sri.
M. M. Hosamani V. A. and Register of nagura to Sri. Deepak
Mushtigeri V.A. and submit report to this office.
Sd/- 23/1/16
Sd/- 25/1/2016
Sd/-25.01.16
Sd/-25.1.16
Sd/- sd/- sd/-
Sd/- 23/1/16
Sd/-
Tahasildar, Hungund
The said document clearly shows that one Shri.
H. M. Shivanagi, who was the Village Accountant,
was promoted as First Division Clerk(FDC) and he
was directed to handover the charge of Karadi
Revenue Inspector post to one Sri. I. B. Balagavi,
Revenue Inspector and the charge of Havaragi Saza
Register to Sri. V. B. Ronada. This document
corroborates the statement made by said Ronada in
his affidavit to the effect that in-charge
arrangement was ordered on 23.01.2016.
According to it, he took the charge of the said
52
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
village only on 25.01.2016. As such, it was only on
30.01.2016, he could prepare the reports and
submit them to the Tahasildar. This also clearly
establish that the statement of the Tahasildar in
particular, and defense of the respondents in
general, that the supporting documents to issue the
Income-cum-Caste Certificate were all submitted to
the Tahasildar on 19.01.2016, is totally false.
v. In addition to the above, the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 22.08.2016, in the writ
petitions under the present appeals, go to show
that the said Village Accountant Sri. Vijay B.
Ronada, appeared in person before the Court and
made a statement to the effect that he took charge
of Havaragi village as Village Accountant on
25.01.2016, who after receiving the papers with
respect to the caste certificate of respondent No.5
53
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
on 29.01.2016 for enquiry submitted his report on
30.01.2016. He also requested the Court for his
protection expressing that he got life threat.
Accordingly, the learned Single Judge ordered for
police protection for the safe passage of that Village
Accountant to his place. At that time, though
Government Advocate representing the
respondents was present, has neither raised any
objection, nor made any statement to the effect
that all the statements that were made by Sri.Vijay
B. Ronada, in the open Court, were not true.
29. The above aspects clearly establish that the
Income-cum-Caste Certificate, which is the subject matter
in this appeal, could not have been issued prior to the date
30.01.2016, whereas, without waiting for necessary and
essential reports from the concerned officials, including the
Village Accountant and the Revenue Inspector, the
54
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
respondent No.4 - Tahasildar, for the reasons best known
to him, proceeded to issue the Income-cum-Caste
Certificate to the respondent No.5, on the very same date
of the application i.e., on 20.01.2016. However, showing in
the said certificate that the same is issued based on the
reports of the Revenue Inspector and the Village
Accountant. It is also not a negligible fact that the husband
of respondent No.5 is stated to be a sitting Member of the
Legislative Assembly (MLA) in the State of Karnataka.
30. The above facts clearly demonstrate, how a
public servant adoring a responsible post like Tahasildar of
a Taluka, can misuse his office and make the public to lose
their confidence and trust in a government machinery. In
the instant case, the petitioners being an elected member
of the same constituency and a voter, in order to ensure
that the person, holding a position to serve public, should
be of clean hand and image, and a government machinery
55
Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016
C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016
Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
should function with transparency and clean hands, have
invoked writ jurisdiction, and have been able to establish
the wrong and mal-functioning by the respondent No.4 -
Tahasildar. As such, in the present circumstance of the
case, justice demands us to hold that the Income-cum-
Caste Certificate issued by the respondent No.4, vide No.
MSC/CR/145/2015-16 dated 20.01.2016 cannot be
sustained. As such, it deserves to be quashed.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
i. Writ Appeal No.101465/2016 and Writ Appeal Nos.101469-470/2016 are allowed.
ii. The order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.103198-199/2016 and W.P.No.29822/2016 dated 21.10.2016 is set aside.
iii. Consequently, W.P.Nos.103198-199/2016 is allowed and W.P.No.29822/2016 is allowed in part.
56Date of Judgment 04.04.2017 W.A.Nos.101469-470/2016 C/w. W.A.No.101465/2016 Veeresh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others iv. The Income-cum-Caste Certificate issued by the respondent No.4 - Tahasildar vide No.MSC/CR/145/ 2015-16 dated 20.01.2016 is quashed.
It is made clear that the above findings on quashing of the Income-cum-Caste Certificate has got nothing to do in deciding the Election petition said to have been pending before the competent Authority. As such, the said Authority is expected to decide the pending Election Petition before it, without being influenced by the findings given above and in accordance with law. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE gab