Karnataka High Court
Sri. Dr. Basavaraja G.N vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2020
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P.B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NO.1520/2015 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SRI DR. BASAVARAJA G.N
S/O NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SURGERY
R/AT FLAT NO.52, H.I.M.S. QUARTERS
HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE AND
SRI N.M. HANDRAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHT ENFORCEMENT
NO.42/A, VINAYAMARGA
SIDDHARTHANAGAR
MYSORE-560 010.
3. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER AND
THE MEMBER SECRETARY TO DISTRICT LEVEL
2
CASTE & INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE
SITUATED AT, OPP: MURUGADEVI TEMPLE
NAZARABAD
MYSORE-560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE REPORT DATED 10.10.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-L
PREPARED BY THE R-2 AND THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to Quash the Report dated 10.10.2014, in No.HI/javi/6/Nahajani/My/12 (Annexure-L) prepared by the 2nd respondent and the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent in case No.GISAKAA/D-10/CR/24/2014-15 as per Annexure-
N.
ii) Issue writ or directions as deem fit to the facts and circumstances of the case and other any order which meet the interest of justice and equity.
INTERIM PRAYER Pending disposal of the above writ petition, petitioner respectfully prays that, this Hon'ble Court 3 may be pleased to stay the operation and all further proceedings in pursuance of the Report dated 10.10.2014, No.HI/javi/06/Nahajani/Mysore/12 (Annexure-L) prepared by the 2nd respondent and stay the all the further proceedings of case bearing No.GiSaKaA/D10/CR/24/2014-15 initiated by the 3rd respondent as per (Annexure-N) to the Writ Petition in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Petitioner has questioned the validity of CRE cell report dated 10.10.2014 and show cause notice dated 10.12.2014 issued by the District Verification Committee on behalf of Member Secretary. Petitioner all along claims that he belongs to Soliga Community which falls under Scheduled Tribe category. In support of his statement he has produced extract of school admission certificate dated 05.11.2014. Based on his reservation status he was selected for MBBS admission through CET and he has also completed MS Course during the period of 2003-2006. He was appointed as Assistant Professor at Hassan Institute of Medical Science, Hassan, on 02.11.2006 and has earned promotion to the Cadre of Professor under General category.
4
3. The petitioner is married to one Chaithra on 03.05.2010 and there were several domestic disputes among petitioner and his wife initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner and it has attained finality. In this back drop, father-in-law of the petitioner Shri. K. Ramachandrappa filed a complaint with the Tahasildar on 18.10.2012 alleging that petitioner had obtained fake caste certificate. Tahasildar rejected the complaint of Shri. K. Ramachandrappa filed against the petitioner on 8.11.2013. Shri. K. Ramachandrappa approached CRE cell by filing a complaint similar to the one filed before Tahasildar. CRE cell passed adverse report against the petitioner on 10.10.2014. Based on CRE cell report, show cause notice was issued on 10.12.2014 by the District Verification Committee. Thus, the petitioner questioned validity of CRE cell report and show cause notice.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 6 (A) and Rule 7 of the Karnataka SC/ST and other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992 (for short "Rules, 1992") provides for verification by Caste and 5 Income Verification Committee, Rule 7 issue of validity certificate. Whereas, District Verification Committee initiated proceedings for issuance of Validity Certificate. If they get any doubt, in such an event, District Verification Committee is entitled to obtain investigation report from the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement in terms of Rule 7 (4). Thus, CRE Cell report dated 10.10.2014 is contrary to Rule 6 (A) and sub Rule 4 of Rule 7 of Rules 1992. He further submitted that the present matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 393 in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and Others at para 37.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no infirmity in the CRE cell report and petitioner has questioned validity of the show cause notice. He has remedy before District Verification Committee for the purpose of conclusion of the proceedings relating to Verification by caste. Thus, petitioner has not made out prima facie case so as to interfere with CRE cell report and show cause notice. 6
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, question of consideration in the present petition is two fold firstly whether CRE cell submitted the report against the petitioner in respect of alleged obtaining fake caste certificate in the absence of invoking Rule 6 (a) and Rule 7(4) of Rules 1992 or not? Secondly, is there any infirmity in the show cause notice issued on 10.12.2014 or not?
7. Perusal of the CRE cell report dated 10.10.2014, it is crystal clear unless and until District Verification Committee directs Directorate of Civil rights Enforcement to investigate and submit the report, the CRE cell has no suo moto power to investigate the caste of a person in so far as caste/income certificate of a person and submit report. Therefore, CRE cell report is premature and without authority of law. Accordingly, CRE cell report dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure-L) is hereby set aside.
8. In so far as questioning the validity of show cause notice is concerned, no doubt, show cause notice dated 10.12.2014 is based on CRE cell report at the same 7 time, District Level Caste & Income Verification Committee is hereby directed not to look into the CRE cell report dated 10.10.2014 and proceed in accordance with Rules 6 , 7 and 9 of Rules, 1992. Petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the show cause notice dated 10.12.2014.
9. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in part. Respondents are permitted to proceed to verify the caste of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules 6 , 7 and 9 of Rules 1992 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petitioner shall be given ample opportunity to lead evidence in support of caste certificate. Petitioner is hereby directed to cooperate with the respondents in deciding the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR