Karnataka High Court
Vijay Kumar Naik @ Bedar S/O Dashrath ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2017
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.101914 OF 2017 (GM, CC)
Between:
Shri Vijay Kumar Naik @ Bedar
S/o Dashrath Naik
Aged about 37 years
R/o Pattankudi
Taluk: Chikkodi
District Belagavi
...Petitioner
(by Shri Shivaraj C Bellakki, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Agriculture
M.S. Building
Bengaluru - 1
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Belagavi District
Belagavi
3. The Assistant Commissioner
Belagavi District
Belagavi
4. The Tahsildar
2
Chikkodi-cum-Returning Officer
APMC Nippani
Chikkodi
Taluk: Chikkodi
District: Belagavi
5. The Tahsildar Grade-2
Tahsildar Officer
Chikkodi
Taluk: Chikkodi
District: Belagavi
6. Shri Annasaheb Bandu Berad @ Naik
Valaki Village
Taluk: Chikkodi
District: Belagavi
...Respondents
(By Shri C. Jagadish Special Counsel for R1 to R5;
Shri Shivaraj Mudhool, Advocate for C/R6)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
25.01.2016 passed by the 5th respondent vide Annexure-F;
direct the respondent No.5 to issue Caste Certificate in favour of
the petitioner as belonging to Bedar community falling under
schedule tribe category; and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi issued calendar of events for election of Members to Agriculture Produce Market Committee. Petitioner belongs to Hindu Bedar community which falls under the Scheduled Tribe Category. Petitioner intending to 3 contest for election to Nippani APMC by Kadalkat Constituency, applied for caste certificate before the fifth respondent-Tahsildar. The Tahsildar obtained a report from the concerned official and after due enquiry, had issued caste certificate to the petitioner as 'Hindu Bedar' for the purpose of preference. Thereafter, the petitioner filed nomination and contested from 07 Constituency for the seat reserved for ST. When things stood thus, the Tahsildar, without authority of law and illegally cancelled the caste certified issued to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner does not belong to Bedar community and he belongs to 'Hindu Berad' Community. He has stated that the Hindu Berad is not a Scheduled Tribe and accordingly, the caste certificate issued to the petitioner stood cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 100078 of 2017. This Court by its order dated 10th January 2017 disposed of the matter directing the Tahsildar to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner. The Tahsildar, after hearing the petitioner passed again the same order rejecting the case of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 4
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the cancellation of the Caste Certificate is at the instance of the sixth respondent who got elected under Scheduled Tribe category, unopposed. The action of the respondent granting caste certificate to sixth respondent, who is also a Hindu Berad and rejecting the same to the petitioner, is arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he submits to set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar canceling the Caste Certificate. The petitioner, in order to substantiate his submission, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of KATTIMANI CHANDAPPA JAMPANNA v. LAXMAN SIDDAPPA NAIK reported in AIR 1967 KNT 182 and referred to paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent submits that the certificate has been issued by the competent authority declaring that he belongs to Hindu Bedar community which comes under Scheduled Tribe category and his election is valid in accordance with law, hence, there is no occasion to withdraw the same as long as the certificate issued by Tahsildar 5 is continued and held valid, he is to be treated as the one belonging to 'Hindu Bedar' community which is falling under Scheduled Tribe category.
4. The learned Counsel, Shri C. Jagadeesh, appearing for the respondents No.1 to 5 submits to dismiss the petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under provisions of Section 4(b) of the The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment Etc) Act, 1990.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of KATTIMANI CHANDAPPA JAMPANNA (supra) wherein it is held that Berad caste is synonymous for Bedar for all purposes of reservation. This Court has referred the Report of Census of India, 1921, Volume VIII. Bombay Presidency, Part II contains the table of castes and tribes. At page 186 of the said report the caste 'Berad' or 'Bedar' is given in the same report at page 184. Similarly, the General Report of Census of India, 1931 Volume VIII. Part-1 Bombay Presidency contains 6 information regarding Tribe people at pages 355-358. This judgment, probably, was referring to the Census report prior to Independence, i.e. the year 1921 and 1931. The report pertains to Bombay Presidency, namely the State of Maharashtra. But the same does not apply to the State of Karnataka. For the purpose as to whether the particular caste comes under Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, it is not a matter of interpretation, but it is a matter for examination as to whether the particular caste has been classified as Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe category. Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution empowers the President of India to include or declare a caste for the purpose of Scheduled Caste of Scheduled Tribe on the basis of recommendation made by respective Governors of the State. In case if the State has to include a particular caste for the purpose of inclusion of the said caste in the Scheduled Tribe category the State Government has to find out as to whether their names find a place in the list of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category. For the same purpose, when the list which is available in the Karnataka State is perused, I fail to find Berad as Scheduled Tribe. As long as 7 the caste does not find a place in the list, that cannot be treated as a caste to be brought under the ambit of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Belgaum area, the caste 'Berad' is claimed as 'Bedar' and hence the petitioner has to be treated as 'Bedar' for the purpose of Scheduled Tribe. The said submission cannot be accepted. Whether the same comes under the category, or not, it is not Tahsildar who declares the Caste, it is for the State Government to recommend to President of India for inclusion of the concerned caste in the list. Under the circumstance, the judgment referred by the learned counsel cannot be made applicable to the case on hand and the caste 'Berad' cannot be treated as 'Bedar', which is coming under the Scheduled Tribe category. If the nomination is filed claiming as 'Bedar', then the petitioner has to bring to notice of Government of Karnataka requesting to recommend their caste to the Government of India for issuance of necessary notification to include their caste as the one coming under Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 8
7. Further, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.6 is also a 'Berad' by referring to Annexure-J which is the land-holding (hiduvali) certificate issued by a Village Accountant, wherein the sixth respondent's name is referred as Berad Annasaheb Bandu. Similarly, the Record of Rights issued in Form No.16 of Chikkodi Taluk, Valaki village wherein the petitioner's caste is referred as 'Bandu'. Probably, if it is the basis to give certificate to declare the petitioner as Scheduled Tribe, that is required to be reconsidered by the Tahsildar for the said purpose. Accordingly, it is directed to the Tahsildar to re-examine again the caste of the sixth respondent. If a certificate is issued to the person/s who belong to Berad community, as the one belonging to 'Bedar' community coming under Scheduled Tribe, the entire caste certificates in the whole District has to be reviewed/reconsidered and fresh orders shall be passed. It is made clear that before passing any order, if it goes against the certificate holder, then a notice is to be issued to the concerned, before taking any adverse action. 9
8. The sixth respondent is directed to appear before the third respondent-Tahsildar within a period of eight weeks time, along with the Caste Certificate and to place the materials to show whether he is 'Bedar' or 'Berad'. The Tahsildar is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of the appearance of the sixth respondent before him.
Petition accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE lnn