Karnataka High Court
Reshma W/O Shridhar vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 17 November, 2022
Author: R. Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION No.202937/2022 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
RESHMA W/O SHRIDHAR
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
OF TOWN MUNICIPALITY, HUMNABAD
R/O INDIRA NAGAR, HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR-585401
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CUM CHAIRMAN,
DIST. CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE
D. C. OFFICE, BIDAR-585401
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BASAVAKALYANA
DIST. BIDAR-585401
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR-585401
2
4. SHIVAPUTRA MALAGE
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORKER
R/O H. NO. 1-96, INDIRA NAGAR,
HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR-585401
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 13-10-2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AS AT ANNEXURE-G TO THE PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent No.1 to 3.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was issued with a caste certificate dated 26.03.2015 that she belongs to 'Reddy' community which is a caste falling within III(A) 3 category. However, after marriage of the petitioner to a person belonging to Buddhist community, the petitioner obtained a caste certificate dated 15.05.2019 stating that she belongs to Buddhist community. On the strength of the said caste certificate, the petitioner contested for the election of Town Municipality, Humnabad in Ward No.1 and was elected on the strength of the caste certificate which declared the social status of the petitioner as Buddhist which falls under BCA category. The fourth respondent who also had contested for the election filed a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner on 14.12.2020 at Annexure-B complaining that petitioner does not belong to Buddhist community and therefore, caste certificate issued on 15.05.2019 should be annulled.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Assistant Commissioner had directed the 4 Tahsildar who had issued the caste certificate to give further information regarding the caste status of the petitioner. The Tahsildar made a communication dated 12.05.2021 to the Assistant Commissioner, Basavakalyan stating that by birth the petitioner belongs to 'Reddy' community and after marrying a person belonging to Buddhist community, the petitioner has obtained a caste certificate stating that she belongs to Buddhist community. The Assistant Commissioner, Basavakalyan once again made a communication dated 13.10.2021 at Annexure-G, which has been impugned in this writ petition, directing that the Tahsildar who is the issuing authority had ample powers to proceed in respect of a caste certificate which was not issued in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 4B of the Karnataka 5 Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.,) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act' for short) if any person is aggrieved of an order passed under Section 4A i.e., in issuing a caste certificate and income and caste certificate, he or she may prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of order before the Assistant Commissioner of the revenue Sub-Division. That being the position, it is for the Assistant Commissioner to decide the appeal, if it is filed in accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that at any rate, the Tahsildar will have no powers to reconsider the caste certificate which has already been issued under section 4A of the Act.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the matter has been taken up by the Tahsildar, Humnabad in terms of the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner. 6
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Assistant Commissioner, Basavakalyan could not have directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry, if an appeal has been filed under Section 4B of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner. No doubt, the Assistant Commissioner can seek for any information at the hands of Tahsildar who is the issuing authority, but at any rate, the Assistant Commissioner, Basavakalyan cannot delegate the powers of the appellate authority to the Tahsildar, Humnabad.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the directions given by the Assistant Commissioner to the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry is without authority of law. Therefore writ petition is allowed, while setting aside the communication dated 13.10.2021 at Annexure-G issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Basavakalyan 7 to the Tahsildar, Humnabad and quashing all further proceedings pending before the Tahsildar, Humnabad in No./Sankirna/CR-175/2021-22 dated 20.12.2021 at Annexure-H, the Assistant Commissioner, is hereby directed to consider the complaint made by respondent No.4 in terms of Section 4B of the Act and the Rules thereunder and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR