Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ravikumara T vs Additional Director General Of Police on 31 July, 2024

Author: M.G.S. Kamal

Bench: M.G.S. Kamal

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC:30295
                                                        WP No. 50809 of 2019




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                           BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 50809 OF 2019 (GM-CC)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    RAVIKUMARA T,
                         S/O SRI. D.K. THAMMAIAH,
                         AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                         WORKING AS ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
                         CESCOM, NO.29, 2ND STAGE,
                         VIJAYANAGAR, MYSORE-17
                         RESIDING AT NO.4768/1,
                         4TH CROSS, SHIVAJI ROAD,
                         N.R.MOHALLA,
                         MYSORE-570007.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER

                            (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH     1.    ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
COURT OF                 CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT CELL,
KARNATAKA                NO.1, 1ST FLOOR,
                         DTE BUIDLING,
                         PALALCE ROAD,
                         BANGALORE-01.

                   2.    SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
                         DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL
                         RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,
                         NO.42/A, VINAYA AVENUE,
                         SIDDARATHA NAGAR,
                         MYSORE-570011.
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:30295
                                          WP No. 50809 of 2019




3.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN
     DISTRICT CAST VERIFICATION COMMITTEE
     MYSURU DISTRICT,
     MYSURU-570005.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

               (BY SRI. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING DECLARE THAT THE
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CASE,
ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 AS COMMUNICATED TO THE
PETITIONER VIDE NOTICE DATED 20.06.2019, ANNX-D IS
WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION BESIDES BEING
ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY. RESTRAIN THE R-2 FROM PROCEEDINGS
FURTHER ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 AS COMMUNICATED TO THE
PETITIONER VIDE NOTICE DATED 20.06.2019.
     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

                         ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of a notice dated 20.06.2019 as per Annexure-D by the second respondent calling upon him to appear for enquiry upon a complaint purportedly received from one Mr. Baalu in respect of Caste Certificate obtained by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition submits that the Caste Certificate was issued to the petitioner by the concerned authority as per Annexure-A and the same has been validated -3- NC: 2024:KHC:30295 WP No. 50809 of 2019 by the District Caste Verification Committee as per Annexure-C. Thus, he submits that once the validation is issued, the office of the District Caste Verification Committee becomes functus officio and no further enquiry of any nature whatsoever is required to be done. He refers to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment Etc) Rules, 1992 and submits that enquiry, if any by the second respondent could be initiated only upon the requisition made by the Committee as required under said rule. He submits that, since no such requisition is made, initiation of the proceedings at the instance of one Mr. Baalu is therefore illegal.

3. Learned Special counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid factual and legal aspects of the matter.

4. In that view of the matter, petition is allowed. The notice under Annexure-D dated 20.06.2019 is quashed.

Sd/-

(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35