Karnataka High Court
Smt. Pushpavathi vs State Of Karnataka on 12 October, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37593
WP No. 24509 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 24509 OF 2013 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PUSHPAVATHI
D/O VITTAL NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.32,
4TH MAIN ROAD, SWATANTRAPALYA,
SRIRAMAPURAM, BANGALORE-560001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
Digitally 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM
signed by APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
SUMA SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
Location: M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560001
4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE
CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE,
BANGALORE CENTRE, NO.1,
TECHNICAL EDUCATION BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37593
WP No. 24509 of 2013
5. THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
KARNATAKA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001
6. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
7. SMT. QUEEN ELIZABETH
W/O CHRISTOPHER CHAKRAVARTHY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO. 167,
FIRST MAIN ROAD
RAMACHANDRAPURAM,
BANGALORE-560001
8. GANDHI VIDYA SHALA,
REPT. BY HEAD MASTER,
BHASHIM NAGAR,
SRIRAMPURA, BANGALORE-21.
AMENDED CAUSE TITLE AS PER
COURT ORDER DATED 30.07.2014
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4
AND 6;
SRI. VIKRAM H. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5;
SRI. AMRUTHESH N.P., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.8;
SRI. B.M. IRISHAD AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 04.05.2013 IN APPEAL NO.3/2012-13 PASSED BY THE
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE AN
APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-W AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:37593
WP No. 24509 of 2013
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 04.05.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.3/2012-13 by which, it allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner, District Caste Verification Committee annulling the caste certificate issued to the respondent No.7.
2. The respondent No.7 claimed that she belonged to scheduled caste and that a certificate dated 05.03.2010 was issued by the respondent No.6 in favour of father of the respondent No.7 and an income certificate was also issued in favour of her father. A certificate dated 08.03.2010 was issued by respondent No.6 to the respondent No.7. The respondent No.7 contested the election to the post of Councilor of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike as a person belonging to schedule caste and she was declared as the returned candidate. The petitioner was the unsuccessful candidate who challenged the caste certificate issued in favour of the respondent No.7 in an appeal filed under Section 4B of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.,) Act, 1990 (henceforth -4- NC: 2023:KHC:37593 WP No. 24509 of 2013 referred to as 'Act of 1990') before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner after considering the case, passed an order dated 08.02.2012 dismissing the appeal primarily on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when the caste certificate was not used for securing any appointment under the State or for securing admission to the educational institutions but was for contesting election. Following this order, the petitioner approached the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell (henceforth referred to as 'CRE Cell') alleging that the respondent No.7 was not a person belonging to the scheduled caste but was a Christian and she had falsely claimed to be a person belonging to the scheduled caste and therefore, prayed that an enquiry be held. The CRE Cell conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated 30.05.2012 before the District Caste Verification Committee/respondent No.3 herein (henceforth referred to as 'DCVC'). The respondent No.3/DCVC after considering the report of the CRE Cell passed an order dated 24.09.2012 setting aside the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No.7.
3. The respondent No.7 challenged the order passed by the respondent No.3/DCVC before the respondent No.2, who -5- NC: 2023:KHC:37593 WP No. 24509 of 2013 passed an order dated 03.11.2012 that an appeal against an order passed by the DCVC was not maintainable. This order was assailed by the respondent No.7 before this Court in W.P.No.45978/2012. This Court in terms of the order dated 26.11.2012, allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 03.11.2012 and restored the appeal on the file of the respondent No.2 and directed the respondent No.2 to consider the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Following this direction, the respondent No.2 held proceedings and in terms of the impugned order dated 04.05.2013, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the respondent No.3 - DCVC and upheld the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No.7.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority under Section 4B of the Act, 1990, since it held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, the proceedings were initiated before the CRE Cell. He submits that the CRE Cell had -6- NC: 2023:KHC:37593 WP No. 24509 of 2013 conducted a thorough enquiry and found that the respondent No.7 was not a person belonging to the scheduled caste but was a Christian. He submitted that the respondent No.3 taking into account the report submitted by the CRE Cell had rightly annulled the caste certificate. He submits that the respondent No.2 having once held that the respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to entertain the report of CRE Cell, could not have relied upon the report of the CRE Cell to give a finding that the caste certificate in favour of respondent No.7 was justified. He further contended that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200065/2022 (The State of Karnataka and others vs. Sri. Ravindra Swamy and others) has held that the Act of 1990 is not only applicable when caste certificate is used for securing employment but also for other purposes in view of the word "etc.," used in the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.,) Act, 1990 and the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.,) Rules, 1992 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules of 1992'). He therefore, submits that even if a representation was filed before the CRE -7- NC: 2023:KHC:37593 WP No. 24509 of 2013 Cell, the same had to be returned back to the appropriate authority namely, the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4B of the Act of 1990.
6. Per contra, the learned Special Counsel appointed by the State to represent the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the enquiry conducted by the CRE Cell disclosed beyond doubt that the respondent No.7 did not belong to the scheduled caste but was a Christian and had relinquished all her claims to the benefits of scheduled caste and therefore, the caste certificate obtained by her was fraudulent. He submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharati Reddy vs. State of Karnataka and others [(2018) 6 SCC 162], the proper remedy is to relegate the petitioner and respondent No.7 before the respondent No.3.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.7 on the other hand contended that the respondent No.2 had rightly held that the respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to entertain a request for annulling the caste certificate in favour of respondent No.7. He invited the attention of the Court to the Rules of 1992 and contended that under Rule 6 of the Rules of -8- NC: 2023:KHC:37593 WP No. 24509 of 2013 1992, whenever an application for validity certificate is made, the Caste Verification Committee and the Caste and Income Verification Committee shall hold an enquiry and if the claim of the applicant is genuine, it may issue a certificate in Form - 1A and if it is found that the caste certificate is obtained by making a false representation, it shall reject the application indicating the reasons therefor. He contended that as per Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1992, if the Committee even after the enquiry finds it difficult or is not in a position to come to a conclusion about the caste of the applicant, it should refer the matter to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement for detailed investigation and report and after receipt of the report, the Committee shall dispose off the case on merits after holding such enquiry as it deems fit. Any person aggrieved by an order of such Committee may appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. He therefore, contended that the role of the CRE Cell would be only after the Committee finds it doubtful to return a finding about the status of the caste of the applicant and not otherwise. He further submits that no person can file an application before the CRE Cell alleging that the caste certificate obtained is doubtful or illegal or fraudulent. He -9- NC: 2023:KHC:37593 WP No. 24509 of 2013 therefore, contends that the respondent No.2 has considered the applicability of the Rules of 1992 and has rightly returned a finding that the respondent No.3 and the CRE Cell had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 on the other hand submitted that the petitioner had sought for a direction to the respondent No.5 to hold an enquiry in terms of the Circular dated 27.03.2003 passed and enquire into the affidavit filed by the respondent No.7. He submits that the respondent No.5 has no authority or jurisdiction to conduct such an enquiry into the caste certificate or claim of the respondent No.7 that she belongs to schedule caste. He therefore, submits that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
10. A perusal of the Act of 1990 and Rules of 1992 discloses that the enactment is meant not only for the purpose of granting verification certificates to applicants to seek
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37593 WP No. 24509 of 2013 employment under the State or admission to the educational institutions under the State but also for other purposes. The word "etc.," found in the Act and Rules makes it characteristic of the applicability of Rule of ejusdem generis and whenever a person obtains a caste certificate under the provisions of the Act of 1990 read with Rules of 1992, he is bound to obtain appropriate verification certificate from the concerned authority under the Act and Rules before putting it into use for any purpose. This is also the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200065/2022. The petitioner was entitled to challenge the caste certificate obtained by the respondent No.7 by filing an appeal under Section 4B of the Act, 1990 which reads as follows:-
"4B. Appeal against order under section 4A.-
(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Tahasildar under section 4A may, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order prefer an appeal to Assistant Commissioner of the revenue sub-division.
(2) The Assistant Commissioner of the revenue sub-division may after giving both parties an opportunity of being heard pass orders
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37593 WP No. 24509 of 2013 allowing or dismissing the appeal and in appropriate cases directing issue of a caste certificate or as the case may be, an income and caste certificate to the applicant.
11. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal in view of the law laid down by the Co-Ordinate bench of this Court in Suryakantha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and others [(2002) 3 Kar.L.J. 498]. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal where caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar was not for securing employment under the State and local bodies nor for securing admission to an educational institution but for contesting an election. The Bench therefore, set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. In the present case, the petitioner did not give up her attempt to annul the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No.7. The petitioner perhaps being counseled to complain before the Directorate, Civil Rights Enforcement submitted a representation before the CRE Cell seeking its indulgence to enquire into the case. Though the CRE Cell had
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37593 WP No. 24509 of 2013 no power to directly entertain a complaint and conduct an enquiry yet, it did conduct an enquiry and recorded statements of the respondent No.7 and her relatives and persons living in her locality and submitted a report before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.3 also committed an error in exercising jurisdiction to verify the caste certificate, though there was no request by the respondent No.7 for issuance of verification certificate.
12. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been contesting the claim of the respondent No.7 before an authority who had no jurisdiction and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court cited supra, it is appropriate to relegate the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4B of the Act of 1990 to challenge the caste certificate issued in favour of the respondent No.7. This would meet the ends of justice.
13. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 04.05.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.3/2012-13 is set aside. The order dated 08.02.2012 in ELN No.01/2010-11 passed by the
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37593 WP No. 24509 of 2013 Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North is also set aside. The case is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, who shall conduct an enquiry in accordance with law. In order to expedite the process, the petitioner shall file an appeal within a period of 30 days from today before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North along with all relevant documents. The Assistant Commissioner shall expeditiously dispose off the appeal after providing an opportunity to respondent No.7 to file objections and after hearing all persons concerned and in accordance with law.
14. It is needless to mention that the report of the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement dated 30.05.2012 and order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 24.09.2012 are all set aside. The Assistant Commissioner shall not look into the said report dated 30.05.2012 and the order dated 24.09.2012 while disposing off the appeal filed by the petitioner.
All contentions are left open.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR