Karnataka High Court
Ravindra Swamy S/O Kallayya Swamy vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 11 October, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153
WP No. 201181 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 201181 OF 2023 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVINDRA SWAMY,
S/O KALLAYYA SWAMY,
OCC: BUSINESS,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O H.NO.8-11-254,
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
BIDAR-585401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
Location: High M.S.BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR,
Court Of
Karnataka BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VIDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
FOR KARNATAKA, NIRVACHANA NILAYA,
SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE-01.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153
WP No. 201181 of 2023
4. THE RETURNING OFFICER,
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY NO.52,
AURAD-B, DISTRICT: BIDAR.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER,
BIDAR DISTRICT, DC OFFICE,
BIDAR-585401.
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR, DC OFFICE, BIDAR-585401.
7. THE TAHSILDAR, BIDAR,
TAHSIL OFFICE, BIDAR-585401.
8. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL
WELFARE OFFICER,
NAUBAD, BIDAR-585402.
9. THE TALUK SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER,
AURAD-B TALUK, DISTRICT: BIDAR
10. KARNATAKA STATE DALITHA
SANGHARSHA SAMITHI (REGD) BIDAR,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE ORGANIZATION
CONVENOR, MARUTHI BOUDHI,
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O AMBEDKAR COLONY,
BVB COLLEGE ROAD, BIDAR-585401.
11. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE,
CIVIL RIGHT ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE,
NO.1, 1ST FLOOR, D.T.E. BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD, NEAR MAHARANI COLLEGE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.JAGADISH, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR
R1, R2, R5 TO R9 & R11;
SMT. PRAMILA NESARAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT.Y. ARUNDHATI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R10)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153
WP No. 201181 of 2023
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.04.2023 IN FILE NO.KAM/JATI
PARISHEELANE/CR-23/2019-20 AS AT ANNEXURE-Z.13 ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND
WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS
OF LAW AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 03.10.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 03.04.2023 (Annexure-Z13) passed by respondent No.5 herein inter alia sought for direction to the respondent authorities to confirm the Caste Certificate issued in favour of petitioner by respondent No.7 on 27.08.2019.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner belong to Beda Jangama Caste and he is the resident of Bidar District since by birth. It is stated in the writ petition that the main occupation of the caste of the petitioner was begging flour and performing religious customary functions since time immemorial. It is further stated that the Beda Jangama Caste is also identified as -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 Jangama, Swami and Ayygolu in Bidar District. It is further stated that, though the family of the petitioner belong to caste of Beda Jangama, none of the family members except the maternal uncle of the petitioner - Sri.Surendra Shastri S/o Virupaksha Shastri had secured the caste certificate as Beda Jangama and his maternal uncle had contested for Assembly Election reserved for Scheduled Caste and therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 has not considered the material produced by the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Hence, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri.Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.C.Jagadish, learned Special Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 to 9 & 11 and Smt.Pramila Nesaragi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Y.Arundhati, for caveator/respondent No.10.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023
4. Sri.Ravi B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has produced relevant material relating to the clan of the petitioner to substantiate that the petitioner belong to Beda Jangama caste, treated to be as Scheduled Caste and therefore, it is contended that respondent No.5 without considering the material on record has passed the impugned order which requires to be set aside in this writ petition. He further contended that respondent No.5, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 4-F of the Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), shall consider the records made available by respondent No.7 herein and the purpose of satisfaction is only with regard to material on record. In the instant case, in the absence of such material on record, respondent No.5 herein without considering the scope and ambit of Section 4-F of the Act has passed the impugned order which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. -6-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023
5. Sri.Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that the procedure adopted by respondent No.5, based on the specific complaint filed before respondent No.3, is highly illegal and requires to be set right in this writ petition.
6. Nextly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.5 is contrary to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham reported in 2012(1) SCC 333 and argued that respondent No.5 has no authority to re-adjudicate the matter afresh and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. He further contended that the respondent No.5 has not considered the relevant material which has been produced before the said authority namely, People of India, National Series Volume-II - The Scheduled Castes wherein it is stated that the Beda Jangamas are distributed in southern Maharashtra and settled at Ballari, -7- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 Gulbarga and other districts in Karnataka and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, Sri.C.Jagadish, learned Special Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 to 9 & 11 invited the attention of the Court to the statement of objections particularly, with regard to the judgment rendered by this Court in Election Petition No.3/1991 dated 27.10.1994 (Annexure-R2) and argued that in the said case, this Court has considered the power of the Revenue authorities under the Act and as such, contended that the writ petition is devoid of merits as this Court in the aforementioned Election Petition considered the Gazetteer of Dr.Suryanath N. Kamath, relating to the difference between Jangam Lingayath and Beda Jangam Lingayath regarding issuance of disputed caste certificate and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. He further contended that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and no school certificate has been produced before the respondent authorities to establish that the -8- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 caste of the petitioner is Beda Jangama. In this regard, he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punit Rai vs. Dinesh Chaudhary reported in AIR 2003 SC 4355. He also submitted that the petitioner has suffered an order in Review Petition No.200036/2023 and accordingly, pleaded that respondent No.5 having taken note of the entire material on record has passed impugned order which requires to be confirmed in this writ petition. He further refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhanajaya Reddy vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2001)4 SCC 9 and referring to paragraph-26 of the said judgment, he argued that the respondent authorities have exercised its power in a manner known to law and therefore, such actions made thereunder cannot be interfered with in this writ petition and as such, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Smt.Pramila Nesaragi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Y.Arundhati, for caveator/respondent No.10 argued on similar lines of -9- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondent- State and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. She also refers to the judgment rendered in the Election Petition referred to above.
9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the writ papers, it would indicate that the petitioner claims to be belong to Beda Jangama Caste treated to be as a Scheduled Caste since birth and it is averred that the main occupation of the petitioner is to beg flour and performing religious customary functions. It is the categorical statement made by the petitioner that, one of his maternal uncle - Sri.Surendra Shastri S/o Virupkasha Shastri had obtained caste certificate as Beda Jangama and he had contested for the Assembly Elections from Hulasur constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste, based on the certificate issued by the then competent authority as Beda Jangama. On the earlier occasion, the issue regarding caste of the petitioner was questioned
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 before the authorities mentioned under the Act and the same has reached this Court in W.P.No.203713/2017 disposed of on 08.08.2017 (Annexure-H). Perusal of the writ petition would indicate that the respondent-Revenue Authorities have conducted enquiry and the Revenue Inspector submitted report as per Annexure-L stating that the petitioner belongs to Beda Jangama caste. Perusal of the panchanama (Annexure-L) dated 10.04.2018 would indicate that the petitioner belong to Beda Jangama, and performing all the functions of Beda Jangama. It is also pertinent to refer to the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.201303-304/2018 disposed of on 21.01.2019 wherein this Court remanded the matter to the competent authority for fresh consideration. Paragraph-13 of the said order reads as under:
"13. It is also not in dispute that, on the basis of application made by the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate for the purpose of election, the respondent No.6-Tahasildar by an order dated 05.04.2018 directed the Village
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 Accountant and Revenue Inspector of Bidar North to submit a report by holding a panchanama within three days. The said authorities after holding panchanama drawn on
10.04.2018 submitted a joint report to the respondent No.6-Tahasildar on 13.04.2018 and specifically observed the nature and characteristics of the caste of the petitioner and submitted a comparative report and opined the characteristics of caste of the petitioner resembled the caste Beda Jangama. The said material documents are issued by the authorities during the course of official correspondence, has been ignored by the Tahasildar while passing the impugned order. The Tahasildar being Taluka Magistrate is bounden duty to hold proper enquiry and consider the documents already produced along with application of the petitioner and pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. The same has not been done."
10. Again, the question relating to determination of the caste of the petitioner has reached this Court in
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 W.P.No.202022/2019 disposed of on 17.06.2019. Paragraphs-4 to 6 of the said order reads as under:
"4. I have carefully perused the above said decision. It does not say in that particular manner. At paragraph-10 of the said judgment, it is clearly clarified that the question whether a person belonged to particular caste which finds place in the order containing Schedule Caste list or lists of the Schedule Case persons, is a different question that has to be examined in the light of the materials on record as well as the orders issued by the President of India. The Court has also observed that the entire jangamas may not be schedule castes but there may be jangamas such as Beda Jangama, Budga Jangama or those specifically mentioned in the Schedule Caste Order under item No.19 of the Order issued by the President of India or as amended by the Parliament. Even if they belong Lingayat or Lingayat cult or the like, they may be said to be coming within the Schedule Caste List. This particular aspect has to be examined by the Tahsildar only after going through the reports submitted before him. It is seen from the impugned order that Tahsildar has only referred to two reports both are dated 05.08.2016. Those joint reports are by the Deputy Director of Social Welfare
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 Department, Bidar and Revenue Inspector and also District Backward Classes Welfare Officer and the then Tahsildar. But, in the order passed by this Court dated 21.01.2019 at paragraph-13 there is reference to the reports submitted by the Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant by holding panchanama and the same was submitted to the Tahsildar on 13.04.2018. There is absolutely no reference to the contents of said report dated 13.04.2018 in the impugned order. He has only referred to the reports dated 05.08.2016 with reference to procedure of cremation of various other schedule caste people and by culling out the difference between the cremation method of petitioner and other schedule caste people. Though he has considered other documents on record, he has not considered the latest report dated 13.04.2018. This Court, in fact, at paragraph-13 has mainly observed with regard to the nature and characteristics of the caste of the petitioner and also comparative report and opinions given by Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector of Bidar. The Tahsildar has actually not culled out in his order what are the documents ought to have been submitted by the petitioner before the writ Court. It goes without saying that the Tahsildar has been represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate in the previous writ petitions and after
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 hearing indetail the said order was passed. The Tahsildar could not have said that the petitioner could have produced so many documents before the writ Court when he was given an opportunity before the Court to submit before the Court, what are those documents actually he require for the purpose of considering the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, the said observations made by the Tahsildar was unnecessary and virtually amounts to commenting on the order passed by this Court. The Tahsildar should know his limits. He has not challenged the said order passed by this Court by way of writ appeal. If really the order passed by this Court was incomplete and without any basis, he would have questioned the same by way of proper writ appeal before this Court. Instead, he comments on the said order which was unwarranted. If the same thing is repeated, the Court will take serious view on that aspect.
5. Be that as it may. The Tahsildar who is bound to follow the directions of this Court as per paragraphs-12 and 13 of the order dated 21.01.2019 passed in W.P.Nos.201303-304/2018, virtually he has not even referred in his order to the report dated 10.04.2018 which was reached to the Tahsildar on 13.04.2018. As to what the said report says and how the Tahsildar is not agreeable with
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 those reports and panchanama is nowhere stated, on the other hand, relying upon the previous reports, the Tahsildar has passed the impugned order. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is just and necessary to remand the matter again to the Tahsildar for conducting fresh enquiry into the matter strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in paragraphs-12 and 13 of the order dated 21.01.2019 passed in W.P.Nos.201303- 304/2018 as noted above.
6. Under the above said circumstances, the impugned order dated 01.04.2019 passed by respondent No.6-Tahsildar as per Annexure-X is hereby quashed. The matter once again stands remitted to respondent No.6-Tahsildar with the similar direction that the Tahsildar has to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made in the earlier writ petitions and also in this writ petition and dispose of the said representation of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
11. Pursuant to the direction issued in the aforementioned writ petition, respondent No.7 herein conducted enquiry and arrived at a conclusion, as per Annexure-V dated 23.08.2019, that the petitioner is
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 belonging to Beda Jangama Caste. However, the matter reached this Court in W.P.No.200829/2019 and this Court by order dated 29.08.2019 (Annexure-X), directed the respondent authorities to re-consider the issue relating to caste of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by this Court in W.P.Nos.201303-304/2018 and W.P.No.202022/2019.
12. On careful examination of the materials produced by the petitioner, the same would indicate that the original authorities are holding that the petitioner belongs to Beda Jangama Caste, however, the competent authorities in Revision, concluded that the petitioner does not belong to Beda Jangama Caste. This dilemma is continued and has not yet reached finality. Having noticed the finding recorded by respondent No.5 herein, though respondent No.5 rejected order dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure-V) passed by respondent No.7 herein, as per the impugned order dated 03.04.2023, in the Revisional jurisdiction, without giving proper reasons, at the instance
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 of the private respondent, blindly arrived at a conclusion that the cultural aspects of the petitioner and his family members do not conform to Beda Jangama Caste however, the material produced by the petitioner has not been considered.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that the scheme of the Act provides that the Tahsildar, on receipt of application by the applicant, conduct enquiry and thereafter, issue the caste certificate, after satisfying about the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. It is the duty of the applicant to provide all the relevant material to the Tahsildar before passing order under Section 4-A of the Act. If any person aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, shall approach the Assistant Commissioner for redressal of grievance by filing appeal under Section 4-B of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner, after providing opportunity to the parties, shall pass appropriate orders on the appeal preferred by the aggrieved party. Section 4-C of the Act provides for
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 constitution of caste verification committee for each District for verification of Caste Certificate issued under Section 4-A or Section 4-B of the Act. The Caste Verification Committee after conducting enquiry, is obliged to issue validity certificate in a prescribed format taking into account the factual aspects of the case, otherwise, it is open for the Caste Verification Committee to reject the application if the applicant fails to provide necessary particulars. Section 4-D of the Act provides for appeal against the order passed by the Caste Verification Committee under Section 4-C of the Act. The Appellate Authority after providing opportunity to the aggrieved party shall pass orders. Section 4-F of the Act provides for Revisional jurisdiction to the Deputy Commissioner to accept the application made by the aggrieved party or by exercising suo moto power, examine the records relating to the decision taken by the Tahsildar under Section 4-A or by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4-B of the Act. It is open for the Deputy Commissioner to interfere with such orders passed under Section 4-A or under
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 Section 4-B of the Act, after providing opportunity to the aggrieved parties. It is well established principle in law that the Revisional jurisdiction is limited and in the event, the Deputy Commissioner has come to a conclusion that issuance of the Caste Certificate under Section 4-A or 4-B of the Act suffers from infirmity then, it is the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to remand the matter to the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry afresh after providing opportunity to the parties thereunder. In the instant case, respondent No.5 while exercising the Revisional jurisdiction, at the instance of respondent No.10, ought not to have interfered with the Caste Certificate issued by respondent No.7 being a original authority, without relegating the parties to the Caste Verification Committee to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the Caste Certificate issued by respondent No.7 herein. If such exercise has been made by respondent No.5, the Caste Verification Committee constituted under Section 4-C of the Act shall discern the true facts relating to the caste of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, taking into
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 consideration the scope of Revisional jurisdiction that may be exercised by respondent No.5, which is undoubtedly limited in nature, that too, at the instance of respondent No.10, respondent No.5 ought to have relegated the entire case on record to the Caste Verification Committee which is the abled body to verify the Caste Certificate issued by respondent No.7 under Section 4-A of the Act. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 4-C(1) of the Act which reads as under:
"4-C(1). The State Government shall constitute one or more verification committees for each districts consisting of such person or persons as may be prescribed for verification of caste certificate and income and caste certificate issued under Section 4-A or 4-B."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. On perusal of the language employed under Section 4-C(1) of the Act in conjunction with Section 4-F of the Act, it is desirable that respondent No.5 ought to have relegated the parties to approach the Caste
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 Verification Committee under Section 4-C of the Act and in that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
15. It is also pertinent to mention here that the impugned order suffers from infirmity on the sole ground that no reasons have been assigned by respondent No.5 in the light of the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.202022/2019 disposed of on 17.06.2019 (Annexure-U). This Court, at paragraph-4 of the said order has categorically observed that the respondent authorities have to examine the entire material on record produced by the petitioner herein in the right perspective while ascertaining the caste of the petitioner. It is the categorical submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the maternal uncle of the petitioner was declared as he belong to Beda Jangama caste and he had contested in the Assembly Election and the said aspect has not been considered by respondent No.5 in detail while passing the impugned order.
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023
16. I have also carefully examined the judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in Dhanajaya Reddy's case (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the law requires a thing to be done in a certain manner, it has to be done in that fashion only. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that functioning of the quasi judicial authority shall conform to the procedure contemplated under the relevant Act. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by respondent No.5 is contrary to law as the relevant documents produced by the petitioner is ignored and no finding is recorded thereon.
17. Nextly, insofar as arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that the report of Gazetteer of Dr.Suryanath N. Kamath, to discern the life style of the Beda Jangama and their culture, has been considered by this Court in the Election Petition in E.P.No.3/1991. It is well established principle
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 in law that the finding recorded by the Court in Election Petition could operate as res judicata for the parties to the said petition only. It is to be noted that the observations made by the Court while disposing the Execution Petition is only right in personam and not in rem. This aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju vs. Nimmaka Jaya Raju and others reported in (2006)1 SCC 212. It is also to be noted that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have relied upon 'Mysore, a Gazetteer compiled for Government. Though broad guidelines have been given to determine the cultural activities of a particular sect, but while applying the same principles to the case on hand, each facts has to be looked into by the respondent authorities in the light of the foundational culture of each of the litigants. The said exercise has not been done by respondent No.5.
18. On careful examination of the impugned order produced at Annexure-Z13, it would indicate that
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 respondent No.5 relied upon the report of the Assistant Commissioner dated 30.11.2019 who has been arrayed as respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 without issuing any notice to the petitioner nor extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner had reported to respondent No.5 herein which is of unilateral enquiry and therefore, solely relying on such report, impugned order is passed and the same would amount to arbitrary exercise of the power by respondent No.5 herein. That apart, in order to ascertain the caste of the applicant relating to Beda Jangama, the respondent-Government has issued Circular dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure-D). On careful examination of the said circular and on applying the same to the impugned order passed by respondent No.5 herein, I am of the view that the finding recorded by respondent No.5 herein runs contrary to the Circular issued by the Government, as the respondent No.5 has not whispered about the circular and further not followed the guidelines embedded in the said Circular (Annexure-D) in the right perspective and has not
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 verified the documents which are required to ascertain the caste of the petitioner in the light of the said Circular.
19. With these observations, I am of the view that an opportunity is required to be extended to the petitioner to produce any material to substantiate his caste. Therefore, it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Caste Verification Committee, Bidar, for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above and to pass appropriate orders in the light of the Circular (Annexure-D) issued by the State Government.
20. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The order dated 03.04.2023 (Annexure-
Z13) passed by respondent No.5 is set aside.
iii. The Caste Verification Committee, Bidar, constituted under Section 4-C of the Act,
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8153 WP No. 201181 of 2023 is directed to consider the case of the parties and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made above and the said decision shall conform to the Circular dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure-D), after affording opportunity to the parties.
iv. The order dated 23.08.2019 passed by
respondent No.7 and the Caste
Certificate dated 27.08.2019 is restored till the decision that may be taken by the Caste Verification Committee, Bidar, under Section 4-C of the Act.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB CT:SI List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42