Karnataka High Court
Sri B T Thimmayya vs The Tahasildar on 30 May, 2013
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION No.17975 OF 2010 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
Sri B.T.Thimmayya,
S/o Bhimappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Secretary,
Sidrameshwara Bhovi Seva Samsthe,
Hanchina Siddapur,
Agradahalli Post,
Tq Bhadravathi, Dist: Shimoga. ... Petitioner
(By Sri Shankarappa, Advocate for
M/s M.T.Nanaiah Associates)
AND:
1. The Tahasildar,
Kote Road, Shimoga Taluk,
Shimoga District.
2. The Commissioner of Social Welfare,
Department Social Welfare,
M.S.Building, Bangalore.
3. K.G.Kumarswamy,
S/o K.Gangappa,
Aged about 55 years,
Member of the Legislative Assembly,
R/at No.89, 'Sri Gouri'
Kolahalli, Vinohab Nagar,
Shimoga.
2
4. The Deputy Commissioner & Chairman
District Caste & Income Verification Committee,
Balaraj Urs Road, Shimoga. ... Respondents
(By Sri C Jagadeesh, Spl. AGA for R1, R2 and R4:
Sri R.L.Patil, Advocate for R3)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order
dated 31.03.2010 passed by the 1st respondent in Case
No.ICC.CR.67/2008-09, a copy of which is produced as
Annexure-F illegal and inoperative and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has called into question the first respondent Tahsildar's order, dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure-F) holding that it is undoubtedly proven that the third respondent belongs to Bovi Community and directing the issuance of the certificate in that regard.
2. Sri Shankarappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahsildar has passed the impugned order without considering the materials placed on record. He brings to my notice the Transfer Certificate (Annexure-H), in which the Head Master of the school has clearly stated that the petitioner does not belong to the 3 Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the admission form (which is a part of Annexure-H), the religion and the caste of the third respondent are shown as Hindu Mola Nanamadhari. Nowhere in the said form it is mentioned that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste.
3. Nextly, Sri Shankarappa submits that in the school admission register (Annexure-J), it is shown that the third respondent's brother Chennakeshava belongs to Vokkaliga Community. Similarly, the school admission registers (Annexures K and L) in respect of the other brothers of the respondent No.3, namely, Yashonath and Panduranga contain the information that they belong to Vokkaliga Community.
4. He submits that the third respondent's father Gangappa is shown as belonging to Mala Bovi Community in the school admission register, as is evident from Annexure-M.
5. He submits that the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell ('CRE Cell') has conducted the elaborate investigation and 4 sent the report to the effect that the third respondent belongs to the Vokkaliga Community which is placed in 3A category.
6. He submits that the third respondent cannot shut out the petitioner by virtue of this Court's order passed in E.P.No.3/2008. According to Sri Shankarappa, the election petitioner was set up by the third respondent. Besides, the controversy in the said election petition was only whether the Bovi and Bhovi are one and the same.
7. The learned counsel submits that as per the notification, dated 30.03.2012 issued by the State Government, Bhovi and Bovi are in Category-I; they are not Scheduled Castes. He submits that as per the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 for Karnataka, the following castes are shown as Scheduled Castes at Sl.No.23:
Bhovi, Od, Odde, Vaddar, Waddar, Voddar, Woddar.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 Sri Ravindra Patil has raised the threshold objection that the petitioner has no locus-standi. He submits that the petitioner has filed this petition in his official capacity as the Secretary 5 of Sidrameshwara Bhovi Seva Samsthe but he has not produced any resolution passed by the Governing Council of the said Society authorizing him to file this petition. He has also not produced a copy of the byelaws which enables him to file this petition.
9. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not a contestant in the elections to the State Assembly. He has not filed any objections before the Returning Officer on the scrutiny of the nomination papers filed by the respondent No.3. He submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Rule 7(5) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992 ('the said Rule' for short).
10. The learned counsel further submits that the order passed under Section 4-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990 ('the said Act' for short) is appealable under Section 4-B of the said Act. If an order is 6 passed under Section 4-C of the said Act, it is made appealable under Section 4-D of the said Act. He has also brought to my notice the Apex Court's judgment in the case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA vs. SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110, wherein it is held that the High Court should not entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without insisting that a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. He submits that the Tahsildar has passed the impugned order pursuant to the order of remand passed by the Appellate Authority and that the appeal itself was filed by the petitioner pursuant to the order, dated 11.09.2008 (Annexure-A) passed by this Court in W.P.No.6366/2008. There is no reason as to why this Court should entertain the writ petition against the order passed by the Tahsildar in the remanded proceedings. The petitioner has not come out with any explanation in the memorandum of the writ petition as to why the alternative remedy of filing an appeal be bypassed and the writ petition be entertained in the first instance. 7
11. He submits that in the certificate issued on 07.04.1976, the petitioner is shown as belonging to Bhovi community. It is based on this certificate that the petitioner got the job of a clerk in the Syndicate Bank. He got the job because he belongs to the Scheduled Caste. His entire service record shows that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste.
12. He submits that the third respondent also sought the election to the Shimoga Municipality from the ward, which was reserved for the Scheduled Caste. He submits that the petitioner had raised no objection, whatsoever to the third respondent's claim that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste till 2002. He submits that the records show that the third respondent's father, brothers, etc. belong to Scheduled Caste.
13. The learned counsel submits that the document, which has come into existence at an undisputed point of time, also shows that the petitioner's ancestors belong to Bovi Community. The certificate issued by the Government Primary School in respect of the third respondent's father's elder brother on 11.12.1914 shows that he belongs to Bovi 8 Community. He submits that the third respondent has produced as many as 23 clinching documents to show that the third respondent, his father, his brothers, his uncles and other relatives belong to Bovi Community. Just because there are stray entries in some of the documents showing the third respondent or his relatives as belonging to Vokkaliga Community or Hindu Mola Namadhari Caste, the petitioner is not justified in contending that the third respondent does not belong to Bovi Community.
14. He submits that the statements of the third respondent's neighbour, members of the Village Panchayat, etc. are all recorded. The said recorded statements unequivocally state that the family of the third respondent belongs to Bovi Community. He submits that their statements indicate that even the burial of the dead bodies in the third respondent's family has taken place, as per the rituals of the Bovi Community.
15. He submits that E.P.No.3/2008 has culminated in the declaration that the petitioner belongs to Bovi Caste, one 9 of the enumerated Scheduled Castes. He submits that this Court, while trying the election petition is an Election Tribunal. The conclusions reached in the election petition are for all purposes the findings of facts only. Sri Patil denies the allegation that the election petitioner was set up by the third respondent. He submits that the election petition was prosecuted with utmost seriousness and zealousness.
16. For advancing the contention that the difference in the spellings cannot be used to contend that a person does not belong to a particular community, he relies on the Apex Court's decision in the case of B.BASAVALINGAPPA v. D.MUNICHINNAPPA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1965 SC 1269 and of this Court's decision in the case of P.SESHAGIRIYAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 1990 KAR 1719.
17. He submits that it is trite that a party who disputes the caste status of another person has to discharge the burden of showing that the latter does not belong to a particular caste. He submits that there is total reluctance on 10 the part of the petitioner in discharging the burden. The tone and tenure of the petitioner's stance before the Tahsildar is that it is not his burden or his duty to prove that the third respondent does not belong to Bovi Caste and that it is for the third respondent to establish that he belongs to Bovi Caste. Such a stance runs contrary to what the Apex Court has said in the case of LAXMAN SIDDAPPA NAIK v. KATTIMANI CHANDAPPA JAMPANNA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1968 SC 929.
18. The learned counsel also sought to draw support from the Apex Court's judgment in the case of BHAIYA RAM MUNDA v. ANIRUDH PATAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1971 SC 2533 to buttress his submission that an admission made by a party in some documents or in some other proceedings cannot be taken as a conclusive proof to invite the finding that he belongs or that he does not belong to a particular community.
19. The learned counsel submits that the report stated to have been prepared by the CRE Cell is marked by 11 unilaterism. He submits that the third respondent had no notice of the investigation proceedings preceding the submission of the investigation report. He submits that the records do not reveal that such a report was indeed sent to the Tahsildar. Therefore, the Tahsildar cannot be found fault with.
20. Sri C.Jagadish, the Special Government Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 submits that the person, who claims that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste, has to discharge the burden of proving that he indeed belongs to the said reserved category. In support of his submissions, he relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF A.P. vs. LAVETI GIRI AND ANOTHER reported in (1995) 4 SCC
32. He read out the relevant portion of para 6 which is as under:
"............We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court adopted a traditional approach of placing the burden of proof of social status founded on the entries in Government record etc. and called upon the State to rebut it on the touchstone of 12 Evidence Act. We are unable to appreciate the view taken by the Division Bench. Burden of proof of social status is always on the person who profess it to seek constitutional socio-economic advantages"
21. He also read out the provisions contained in Section 4-A(5) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990 which is extracted hereinbelow:
"4-A(5) The burden of proving that the candidate or his parent or guardian belongs to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes shall be on the applicant."
22. Sri Jagadish brings to my notice, the Government Order, dated 23.03.1987. Para 3 of the said order reads as follows:
"3. The caste certificate once issued to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person shall be valid till it is cancelled by the authority who has issued, by extending a reasonable opportunity to the candidate after initiating proceedings to cancel the caste certificate, if found wrongly issued because of misrepresentation of facts or otherwise or till the member ceases to be a Scheduled Caste/member by virtue of change of his faith or religion."13
23. Nextly, he read out para 5 of the said Government Order to advance the contention that when the genuineness of the SC/ST Certificates are in doubt, it is desirable that the concerned authority refers the matter to the C.R.E. Cell. Para 5 reads as follows:
"5. In case of doubt about the genuineness of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe certificate, the authority concerned may refer the case to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Bangalore for causing verification and report."
24. As the third respondent's grandfather is shown as belonging to Mala Bhovi in his school records, his grandson (the respondent No.3) cannot claim a different caste status. He takes exception to the Tahsildar giving weightage to certain school records, wherein the third respondent and his family members are shown as belonging to Mala Bhovi and Mola Namadhari. The Tahsildar has not considered the other documents, which show that the third respondent and his relatives do not belong to Bhovi Caste.
14
25. Sri Jagadish further submits that the Tahsildar has committed a serious mistake in relying on the report, dated 30.06.2008 of the C.R.E. Cell. Noticing the flaws in the said report, the Additional Director General of Police had ordered re-investigation by the Superintendent of Police of C.R.E. Cell.
26. He submits that the Tahsildar has proceeded on an erroneous footing that the burden of proving that a holder of the caste certificate does not belong to the Scheduled Caste is on the petitioner. The burden has to be discharged by the person, who is taking the benefit of such a certificate.
27. Sri Shankarappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the course of his rejoinder, submits that a person is not entitled to plead estoppel merely on the ground of his having enjoyed the caste status under a certificate for a long period. He relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF T.N. AND OTHERS vs. A.GURUSWAMY reported in (1997) 3 SCC 542.
28. Sri R.L.Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 takes exception to the petitioner and the learned counsel 15 for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 making serious allegations against the Tahsildar without making him a party by name.
29. The submissions of the learned advocates have received my thoughtful consideration. The preliminary objections raised on behalf of the third respondent are to be considered first. The first preliminary objection is that the petitioner has no locus-standi. The President of Sidrameshwara Bhovi Seva Samsthe has filed this petition in his official capacity as the Secretary of the said Society. That the Society itself is not the petitioner may not be an adequate ground for rejecting this petition. Further, the Secretary of the petitioner himself, namely, B.Thimmaiah had earlier filed W.P.No.6366/2008, filed an appeal before the appellate authority and has been a complainant all along. The objection that he does not have the locus-standi, does not appear to have been taken in the earlier writ proceedings, appeal proceedings and in the proceedings before the Tahsildar. As it is not in dispute that the said Society is formed to safeguard the interests of the persons belonging to the Bovi Caste, it cannot be said that its Secretary does not 16 have the litigational competence to challenge the third respondent's claim to be belonging to the Bovi Caste, an enumerated Scheduled Caste.
30. The second preliminary objection is that the Tahsildar's order is appealable and that therefore the petitioner is not justified in filing the writ petition in the first instance itself. The provisions of law for filing the appeal against the order of the Tahsildar as pointed out by the third respondent's side are not applicable for the present case. The contention that the parties had on an earlier occasion challenged the order of the Tahsildar before the appellate authority is also not acceptable. Neither the acts of the party nor the consent of the party can have the effect of conferring the jurisdiction on any forum. This Court, by its order, dated 23.1.2009 passed in W.P.No.13173/2008 in the case of CHIKKANNA V. DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER AND ANOTHER has held that the Karnataka SC/ST and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 and the Karnataka SC/ST and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992 have 17 application only for the certificates issued thereunder which are being made use of for securing an appointment or admission to a course in an educational institution. In the instant case, the third respondent has made use of the caste certificate for filing the nomination-paper in a reserved constituency. Therefore, Section 4-B of the said Act and Rule 7(5) of the said Rules providing for appeal are not invokable for the purpose of challenging the Tahsildar's order.
31. The third preliminary objection is regarding the delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the challenge to the Tahsildar's certificate. That the petitioner secured a job in the Syndicate Bank based on the caste certificate and that he served the Syndicate Bank for a number of years and that thereafter he sought elections to Shimoga Municipality are no good grounds for rejecting this petition. As held by the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF T.N. (supra), a person concerned is not entitled to plead estoppel merely on the ground of enjoying caste status under a certificate for a long period of 26 years. In the case of DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE (supra), the Apex Court has taken the considered 18 view that the fraud committed by ineligible persons in taking the benefits exclusively available for deprived classes of persons cannot be over-ruled. It has this to say in paragraph No.7 of its decision.
"7. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates envisaged of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. By reason thereof, the genuine candidates would be denied admission to professional courses etc. or appointments to offices or posts under State instrumentalities. More often they are denied social status certificates while ineligible or spurious persons secure them easily. After falsely gaining entry, they resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate to his child. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be in the following manner:
........................................................................"19
32. The constitutional objective of rendering the socio- economic justice envisaged in the preamble of the Constitution and under Articles 14, 15, 16, 38, 39 and 46 cannot be defeated merely on the ground that a spurious person has been availing of the benefits of reservation on the basis of false records. The third objection of delay and laches is therefore liable to be over-ruled and accordingly it is over- ruled.
33. The first question that falls for my consideration is whether the burden of proving that the third respondent belongs to a Scheduled Caste is to be placed on the petitioner or on the third respondent? In the case of DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE (supra), the Apex Court has expressed the considered view that the burden of proof of social status is always on the person who profess it to seek the constitutional socio-economic advantages. It is no part of the duty of the State to disprove.
34. The provisions contained in Section 4-A(5) of the said Act, the provisions of which are already extracted 20 hereinabove, unequivocally state that the burden of proving that the candidate or his parent belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe or other Backward Classes is on the applicant. The Government Order, dated 23.3.1987 also states that the caste certificate can be cancelled by the authority, who has issued it by extending reasonable opportunity to the candidate. The Government Order is also indicative of the burden placed on the beneficiary of reservation based on the caste to show that he really belongs to a caste for which a seat or job is reserved. In this background, let me now examine how the Tahsildar has proceeded. His order states as follows:
1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ ºÁdgÁzÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ, ¸ÀzjÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzAÀ zÀÄ ¥ÀǪÀð¨sÁ« ªÀiËTPÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÁªÀÅ ¨sÉÆë eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªg À AÉ § §UÉÎ zÁR¯Áw ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¨sÉÆë eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªg À ® À èªAÉ §ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¹zÀÝ¥r À ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÉ®¸Àª® À èªAÉ zÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ªÁzÀPÁÌV CfðzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀºÉÇÃzÀgg À ÀÄ MPÀÌ°UÀ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªg À AÉ §öÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¤dªÉAzÀÄ M¦àz° À è ¸Àzj À CfðzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀºÉÇöÃzÀgg À ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ MPÀÌ°UÀ eÁwAiÉÆqÀ£É ªÉʪÁ»PÀ 21 ¸ÀA§AzsÀ CxÀªÁ ¸À«ÄÃPÀgt À ºÉÆA¢zÁÝgAÉ § §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ¸Á¢ü¸® À Ä «¥ü® À gÁVgÀÄvÁÛg.É DzÀg,É ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgt À zÀ°è ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀĪÀgÃÉ ºÁdgÀàr¹gÀĪÀAvÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ¸ÀA§A¢üPg À ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¨sÉÆë d£ÁAUÀzÀ zÀÈrsÃPÀgt À ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¥ÁàV ¥Àq¢ É zÀöÝ°è ºÁUÀÆ ¸Àª® À vÀÄÛU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ¥Àq¢ É zÀöÝ°,è CzÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ K£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÀÆArzÁÝgAÉ §ÄzÀÄ F ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ §A¢®è.
35. This approach and reasoning are indicative of the Tahsildar labouring under the misimpression that the burden is to be discharged by the complainant and not by the beneficiaries of the reservation. The Tahsildar has virtually misdirected himself by wondering as to what action is taken by the petitioner against the relatives of the third respondent, if they have wrongfully availed of the reservation benefits. The question is whether the third respondent has discharged his burden in showing that he belongs to Bovi community, a Scheduled Caste. But the Tahsildar has concerned himself with what the complainant (petitioner) has done and has not done.
22
36. The next question that falls for my consideration is whether the Tahsildar is justified in not referring the matter to the CRE Cell for verification of the certificates, etc. Paragraph No.5 of the Government Order, dated 23.3.1987, which is extracted hereinabove, contains the enabling provision. It enables the concerned authority (in the instant case, the Tahsildar) to refer the matter to the CRE Cell for verification of the certificates, if he entertains the doubt about the genuineness of the certificate. As this is not a provision in the statute or the rules framed thereunder and as it does not contain any mandatory requirement, it is not a must that the Tahsildar should necessarily refer the matter to the CRE Cell. But if he has a serious doubt about the genuineness of the certificates, it is desirable that he must refer the matter to the CRE Cell and seek its report thereon. It is for him to seek the assistance of the CRE Cell in the fact-finding exercise.
37. Whether to refer the matter to the CRE Cell or not is the discretion vested in the Tahsildar. But such a discretion cannot be exercised or refused to be exercised arbitrarily. If he is not entertaining any doubt about the genuineness of the 23 certificates, he should say so and then proceed to conclude the enquiry on his own. If there is serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the certificates, he has to refer the matter to the CRE Cell for the verification of the certificates and call for the report thereon.
38. If the Tahsildar calls for the report from the CRE Cell, it is necessary that he must give its copy to both the parties and afford them an opportunity to offer their remarks on the report.
39. The third question that falls for my consideration is whether the materials placed on the record of the Tahilsdar are objectively examined. My answer to this question is in the negative, because the Tahsildar has only referred to the documents produced by the petitioner. Their evidentiary value is not analyzed at all. To mention a few documents are the (i) Transfer Certificate (Annexure-H) which states that the respondent No.3 does not belong to the Scheduled Caste; (ii) admission form (part of Annexure-H) showing the petitioner's religion and caste as Hindu Mola Namadhari; 24
(iii) the school admission record in respect of the petitioner's brother Sri Chennakeshava K.G. showing that he (Chennakeshava) belongs to Vokkaliga Hindu Community,
(iv) the school admission record (Annexure-K) in respect of the Yashonath K.G., the third respondent's another brother, showing that he (Yashonath) belongs to Vokkaliga Community; (v) the school admission record (Annexure-M) showing the petitioner's father as belonging to Mala Bhovi.
40. The order, dated 25.02.2012 passed by this Court in E.P.No.3/2008 also does not come to the rescue of the third respondent because (a) this Court did not have the benefit of certain documents produced by the petitioner in this case (b) the petitioning parties in the Election Petition and the Writ Petition are different.
41. For all the abovesaid reasons, I quash the impugned order. However, whether the petitioner belongs to Bhovi Caste or not requires the factual determination. Therefore, I am not acceding to the petitioner's second prayer for the mandamus for issuing a declaration that the respondent No.3 25 does not belong to Bhovi Caste. It is for the fact-finding authority to decide the issue. This matter is therefore remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry in accordance with law. The Tahsildar shall complete the enquiry within an outer limit of four months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order.
42. This petition is accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/MD