Sri H B Bhaskar Naik vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

Sri H B Bhaskar Naik vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2010

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 8*" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B.   _

   

WRIT PETITIQN E\£o.11721[20i0 (LB,--RE,s":j~.  

BETWEEN:

Sri H.B. Bhaskar Naik,

S/o Sri Bilie Naik,

Aged about 52 years,

Member, Taiuk Panchayath,' 
Srigeri, Chikkamagaiur District".
R/o Heggarasu, ._  9
Nilanduru Village,   _  '

Naliur Post, Sringeriﬂfai-uE<,  _,   -  

Chikkamagaiur D_istri<:t;'i' _. _     V "   Petitioner

7._(B.y star; aj.:§shé'i<.g%§risHegde, Advocate for
v = %Si'i,,Ch._andra_ka.n*th R. Gouiay)

AND:

  -A 'State of i('a.rnataié<Vé§,""' A

iv'

 A _RoaVci ..Deve.l_o"pment and Panchayathraj,
  Bjuilo'ing,__Banga|ore -- 560 001.
The Deputy: Commissioner,
 Chicigkamagaiur District.

  nTEh'e.,Assistant Commissioner,

'A.,_'Chi.ekkamagaiur District.

  -~~*:The Tahsildar,

Sringeri Taluk,
Chickkamagalur District.



5. Karnataka State Eiection Commission,
Represented by the Secretary,
Karnataka State Co--operative
Marketing Board Building (Behind),
15' Floor, No.8, Cunningham Road,
Bangalore -- 560 052.

6. Sri A.S. Nayana,
President,
Taiuk Panchayath,

Sringeri, District Chikamagalur.   

(By Sri R. Devdas, AGA.,.,fb.r, R~1 to   "
Sri Vishwajith, Advocate for  ' g
Sri K.N. Phanindra, AdVocate"for R-5,"-A 
Smt. Sheeia Krishna,~Adydca.te,_for R-6)

This writ petition is flied ._u'nder._A.rti<fi'e,s' '2'26"and 227 of the
Constitution of Indi.a.~praying' to 'Cali .fo~r,i'*the're.¥evant records and
quash the impug3_nec§§*order/commun_ica"tio-nr' dated 25.3.2010
passed by the R3"as«.per-Anr:e;:_ure~P7'as_'iiiegai and void; and etc.

This writ_petition,_ for Preiiminary Hearing in 'B'
Group this day,' the Court m,a.de»th_e foiiowingz

"ssgﬁoen

Thetpetitioneir "hasV___ra,i.sed the chaiienge to the order, dated

ﬁ5..,3».r2,0-10 (£§rine§:§u,re--P) passed by the respondent No.3.

Theitacts of the case in brief are that the sixth

-4i_Cf'_jirespyondentbecame the member of the Taiuk Panchayath, Sri'nigerii'.i'n December 2005. Subsequently, he also became the

-Presidgent of the said Panchayath. The petitioner is also a iV""A..n9§ember of the said Panchayath. Asserting that the sixth respondent's income is so high that it disentitles him to ciaim the HEM BCMB reservation, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner on 14.19.2009. The Assistant Commissioner on holding the,,,e'r_i'iq'ti,iry has delivered the ﬁnding that the sixth respondent _ a false caste certificate. The Assistant Commissigner~C.,::fu.rthe"r~«.. opined that the sixth respondent's, cancelied. As the concerned aut.!'»i'<';-ri_tiesV"w,_e're not"a(;t.i:ng on his'. order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.-*i§[email protected],V_seek;.ri,g_'a directiori to the Government, Deputy Assistant Commissioner to pass the,....fin_a~i. matter of the removai of the and the Presidentship of This Court, by its order, dated 26.2.2633, submissions of the learned avdvocategisfdisposédiwof the petition with a direction to the A-ssist'a.nt Commissioner to conciude the enquiry proceedings within_"'C'._o«ne' time. Thereafter, the Assistant Cornmis's~ione:r vide his order, dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure-P) has the 'finding that the sixth respondent beiongs to BCMB. 'therefore confirmed the issuance of the caste certificate A f..B't?i~/IB) to the sixth respondent for the purpose of seeking heiection against the seat reserved for BCMB category. £3.31

3. It is this order, which is being assaiied before me by Sri Ra}'ashei<ar Hegde.

4. Sri Rajashekar Hegde submits that the peti.ti_onVerk..isnot given an opportunity of being heard in the matter'.-«C._:'Thei.:ixe'aArnedM"

counsei submits that the Assistant' ""Comrri.iéssi;or.iV"er__has no» jurisdiction to review his own order. His:firrther_-submissionfis that the sixth respondent has madeyay wrong before this Court to the effect that___the,e'riqLi:iry°"iis._ pen'dirrg'*"before the Assistant Commissioner. 'Ash'adi-«niiaittﬁfifv:'Q'f..'\f??Ct; "O enquiI'Y whatsoever was pending bis-fore_:'V.theVAAs_sist'antCommissioner, so contends

5. Sri " iearned Additionai Government Advocatejappearingfor the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the.'fa«hsiid_arfs.order at Annexure~--K is passed in a different conte~xt'C.of ti'1e"_'isi_xtj§§i'respondent seeking election to membership of. Vokkaiiga---Viésiaingha. He submits that the order passed by the .:'VV'As's.ista;1t' Commissioner is valid and correct. The petitioner's grievagncey if any, ought to have been chaiienged by fiiing C e.lecti'on petition.

FISH.

6. Sri Vishwajith, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the Assistant Commissioner has passed a well~considered order warranting no interference from._thiVs-'Court. He emphatically submits that the sixth respondent Vokkaliga Community, one of the enunfrera'tedA_casteslior cia-i1ming ' BCMB reservation. That he was not an«,in'coA'me tax assesseevvasa on the date of filing and scrutiny ofihthe nom.in'ation is not in dispute at all.

7. This Court also tooitwthe Kashinath, the learned advocate,_..wh:Vo:-.appears_:ﬂfor._a*nd~_on tvehaif of the Social Welfare i<arnatai<a in the matters pertaining brought to my notice the Government order, dated"~.1V3'."1.1995, wherein the Government {has..classi:fie,d.. and notifiedcertain classes of citizens as backward for' "of reservation of seats and offices of lV"-._,.»chairperqsons.iniiftillla Panchayath, Taluk Panchayath and Grama Pamzhayath, _°1-As per the said Government order, in category 'B', Community is at Sl.i\io.1(a). He also brought to my ' that no person falling under category 'B' shall be entitled _to"the reservation, if.--~ ﬂﬁﬂ

(i) (ll)

(iii)

(iv) He/She or either of his/her parents/guardian is a Class I or Class II Officer in the servlce of the Government or holds an equivalent post in public sector undertaking or an employee under .ia"p_'ri_\rate employer and draws a salary which is {lot that of a Class II Officer {init.i.al top?'Vti':e'_;_payu"

scale of Rs.2050-3950);

He/She or either of hCi.s/'her pAare_nts[CgCu_a'r.di'an is an'-C' Income--tax Assessee/VlI.ealA't:h_ Tax As's'ess_eep_::§ He/She or eithuerlloft2_his[he'rff_plaitents/guardian is assessed'_iio._Sales''"l''a';{;:V . 2 C 1'-He/_She'or--iiei4the'ri-ofhis/her parents/guardian or both tolgether own's:'rno're"than 8 hectares of raihfed or dry _§' "land or'its__Veqoi\}alent.

dated 26.2.2010.

» _VV'i'h:e'«.stil5hriissions made at the bar have received my thoog~htFo,i' conlsvideratlion. This Court also places on record its apprecia.tio.n"*«ot the assistance rendered by Srl Kashinath. CC9Vf~..The Assistant Commissioner has passed the order in c_ornpl'iance with the direction contained by this Court's in its It is also possible to construe that the F2511;

earlier proceedings culminating in the order, dated 3.v1?-__._2009 are in the nature of opinion, whereas the proceedings after the passing of the order by this Court have passing of this impugned order. Viewed»«in' it see no substance in the submission;":irg'ed':Von'~.,§'eh.aif petitioner that the Assistant Co'in:i*irissioner__ __i1a,si-.:re"iriewed his"? order and that he has no jurisdictio,n------to",'do"the sarne«..

10. The Government clearly lays down the principies"j,;1,.t(:in one gets the entitlement to v'.:.i'nV'A"qu'estion. The Assistant to the said Government Order to theifagctsiof brought out DY the Petitioner and the sixth responden.t. A' It is in dispute that the petitioner has filed the comp'Eaint_,onV'th'ei.basis of which the proceedings in question have d2;iVtai<.en pia'ce.i'---':Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner ought to the petitioner in the matter before passing the order. 1:2. The sixth respondent may have produced the documents pertaining to the filing of income tax returns, refund, REM.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court