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 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Vinayak Vasudev Vaidya vs State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2013

Author: L.Narayana Swamy

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013

                              BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

      WRIT PETITION NO.31435 OF 2008 (GM-RES)

Between:

1. Vinayak Vasudev Vaidya
   Aged about 52 years
   Canara Bank Employee
   R/o Chandranath Nagar,
   Hubli, District: Dharwad

2. Bhujang Gopal Vaidya
   Aged about 47 years
   Canara Bank Employees
   C/o Canara Bank, Honnavar
   UK District

3. Madhav Shankar Vaidya
   Aged about 46 years
   Canara Bank Employee
   C/o Canara Bank, Sirsi
   UK District

4. Nityanand Ramachandra Vaidya
   Aged about 47 years
   Canara Bank Employee
   R/o Vijay Nagar,
   Shimoga
                                                      ...Petitioners
(by Shri Hegde Neeralagi and Shri Patil, Advocates)
                                    2




And:

1. State of Karnataka
   By Secretary, Social Welfare Department
   M S Building
   Bangalore - 1

2. Deputy Commissioner
   Uttara Kannada District
   Karwar

3. Tahsildar,
   Sirsi Taluk
   Sirsi - 581 401
   Uttara Kannada District

4. Superintendent of Police
   Civil Rights Enforcement Cell
   Mangalore
                                                    ...Respondents
(by Shri Anand K. Navalgimath, Advocate)

      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned notices dt.
10.11.2008 issued by R3 and Annexure-N, P, Q and R; and etc.

      This petition coming on for preliminary hearing 'B' group,
this day, the Court made the following:

                             ORDER

Notice, all even dated 10th November 2008, as per Annexure-N, P, Q and R issued by the Office of Tahsildar, Sirsi is challenged in this petition. The petitioners state that they belong to Moger community, which has been classified as 3 Scheduled Caste for the purpose of education and employment. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though in the Scheduled Caste Order 1950 the restriction of 'Moger' community to be classified as Scheduled Caste was limited only to undivided South Kanara District and Kollegal Taluk, by virtue of Presidential Order, the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1976 (No.108 of 1976 dated 18th September 1976) an amendment was brought to Scheduled Caste Order of 1950 wherein the restriction has been lifted and the persons belonging to Moger community residing in any part of the State are entitled for the caste benefit. As things stood thus, on the recommendation dated 10th November 2008 issued by the fourth respondent-Superintendent of Police, CRE Cell, Mangalore, the Tahsildar, Sirsi issued notices to the petitioners doubting their caste and further directed them to appear in his office on 21st November 2008 and produce relevant documents to substantiate that they belong to Moger community of Scheduled Caste. This court, by its order dated 18th August 2008, stayed the notices. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this 4 Court in the case of UTTARA KANNADA ZILLA MOGERA SANGHA AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS in Writ Petition No.11756 of 2010 disposed of on 29th June 19... wherein it observed that Moger community has to be treated as Scheduled Caste in the entire State of Karnataka and they shall not be placed into hardship in obtaining caste certificate.

2. Today, the matter is listed for preliminary hearing under 'B' group. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the opinion that Notice issued to the petitioners vide Annexure-N, P, Q and R shall not be challenged in the writ jurisdiction. Though there is no hard and fast rule, but this Court is aware that if the notices issued adversely affects the rights of the parties, the same could be challenged. But, that is not so in the present case. What has been stated in the impugned notice is that the petitioners have obtained false caste certificate and the same require to be examined and hence the petitioners were directed to appear before Tahsildar on 21st 5 November 2008 to prove their Caste. These Notices have been challenged in this petition. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that content of the notice is not contrary to 1976 Presidential Order which lifts the area restriction, but the simple and plain purpose of the impugned notice is to produce the relevant document to substantiate that they belong to a particular community. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of UTTARA KANNADA ZILLA MOGERA SANGHA (supra) will not enure to the benefit of the petitioners because, the said order of the Division Bench, as I understood, is to the effect that the persons who have obtained genuine caste certificate shall not be humiliated time and again by directing them to prove their caste. But, that is not so in the present case. The notice only directs the petitioners to appear on a particular date. Even that date is also over now. In my opinion, no useful purpose would be served in setting aside the notice. Setting aside the notice would only prevent the authorities in examining the genuineness of the false caste certificates. Under the circumstance, I am not inclined to interfere.

6

4. Accordingly, writ petition is rejected. Tahsildar, Sirsi is directed to issue fresh notices to the petitioners directing them to appear on a particular date in order to prove their caste. In case, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, it is open for them to invoke Section 77 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, Backward Class (Reservation and Appointment) Rules, 1982.

SD/-

JUDGE lnn