Karnataka High Court
Sri Rudramuni vs Deputy Commissioner on 3 July, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:27792
WP No. 803 of 2019
C/W WP No. 668 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 803 OF 2019 (LB-ELE)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 668 OF 2019 (GM-CC)
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 803 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
SRI RUDRAMUNI
S/O B BHEEMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT VIDYANAGARA EXTENSION
103, JAGALUR CONSTITUENCY
JAGALUR TOWN
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
Location: HIGH DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. TAHSILDAR
JAGALUR TALUK, JAGALUR
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HARAPPANAHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
HARAPPANAHALLI
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 583 131.
4. JAGALUR TOWN MUNICIPALITY
JAGALUR, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577 528
BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:27792
WP No. 803 of 2019
C/W WP No. 668 of 2019
5. SRI B. T. RAVI KUMARA
S/O B. THIMMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/A RAMALAYA ROAD,
JAGALUR TOWN
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. M. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
DIRECTION OUSTING THE R-5 FROM OFFICIATING AS
COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.9, JAGALUR TOWN MUNICIPALITY,
JAGALUR; DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION
OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-D DATED 26.12.2018 AND
TAKE ACTION AGAINST R-5 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.
WRIT PETITION NO. 668 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
B.T. RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. B. THIMMA REDDY,
RAMALAYA ROAD,
JAGALUR TOWN,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ASST. COMMISSIONER
HARAPPANAHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
HARAPPANAHALLI,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 002.
2. TAHSILDAR
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 528.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:27792
WP No. 803 of 2019
C/W WP No. 668 of 2019
3. RUDRAMUNI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O. B. BHEEMAPPA,
#103, VIDYANAGAR EXTN.,
JAGALUR TOWN,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.12.2018 (ANNEXUER-C) PASSED BY
THE R-1 IN CASE NO. ELN/CR/38/2018.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In W.P.No.668/2019:
This writ petition challenges the order dated 15.12.2018, issued by the 1st respondent, which canceled the certificate affirming that the petitioner belongs to the Backward Class-B category.
2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Reddy community and received a certificate from the concerned Tahsildar stating that he belongs to Backward Class-B. Utilizing this certificate, the petitioner contested and won the election for the position of Councillor for Ward No.9, Jagalur Town Municipality, under the Backward Class-B category.
3. The 3rd respondent appealed to the 1st respondent under Section 4(B) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled -4- NC: 2024:KHC:27792 WP No. 803 of 2019 C/W WP No. 668 of 2019 Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990. The 1st respondent canceled the petitioner's caste certificate on the grounds that the petitioner owns agricultural land exceeding 8 hectares, disqualifying him from the Backward Class-B category. Hence, this writ petition.
In W.P.No.803/2019:
4. This writ petition seeks a writ of quo warranto to disqualify respondent No.5 from acting as Councillor for Ward No.9, Jagalur Town Municipality, due to the cancellation of the petitioner's caste certificate by the competent authority.
5. For convenience, the parties are referred to according to their ranking in W.P. No.668/2019.
6. The petitioner filed his nomination for the Councillor position reserved for the Backward Class-B category, based on the caste certificate issued by the relevant Tahsildar. The petitioner was declared the successful candidate for the constituency.
7. The petitioner's learned counsel contends that the 1st respondent lacked the authority to cancel the caste certificate under Section 4(B) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990. He argues that this power pertains only to caste certificates used for employment or for admissions to educational institutions. The caste certificate in question was issued under the Government Order dated 13.01.1998.
-5-NC: 2024:KHC:27792 WP No. 803 of 2019 C/W WP No. 668 of 2019
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 argues that since the petitioner and his family own dry agricultural land exceeding 8 hectares, the respondent authority rightfully canceled the caste certificate. He asserts that under Rule 2-BB of the Karnataka *Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1977, a caste certificate refers to one issued by the Tahsildar under the provisions of the 1990 Act. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner properly exercised authority under Section 4-B of the 1990 Act to cancel the certificate. He further argued that the decisions cited by the petitioner's counsel do not apply, as they were rendered without reference to these Rules.
9. The arguments of the learned counsels for both parties have been carefully considered.
10. The petitioner contested the election for Councillor in Jagalur Town Panchayat under the Backward Class-B category and was declared the winning candidate. Respondent No.3, an unsuccessful candidate, appealed under Section 4B of the 1990 Act to the Assistant Commissioner. Respondent No.1, noting that the petitioner and his family held dry agricultural land exceeding 8 hectares, canceled the caste certificate. A valid caste certificate for Category-B requires that the holder does not possess dry agricultural land exceeding 20 acres (approximately 8 hectares). The petitioner holds 25 acres.
* corrected vide chamber order dated 25.07.2024 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:27792 WP No. 803 of 2019 C/W WP No. 668 of 2019
11. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in WP No.3019/2002 (DD 28.1.2002), ruled that a caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, not intended for securing appointments in government bodies or educational institutions, cannot be challenged under this Act if used for election purposes.
12. Similarly, a coordinate Bench in WP No.13173/2008 (DD 23.1.2009) stated:
"The said Act and Rules are for issuing caste certificates or validity certificates only for employment or educational admissions. If the certificate is used for contesting an election, it is not covered by this Act, making the notice issued without jurisdiction."
13. Although coordinate Benches of this Court have held that caste certificates issued for the purpose of contesting elections cannot be canceled under the provisions of the Act, 1990, because this Act is intended for certificates used to secure employment or admission to educational institutions, these decisions were rendered without considering Rule 2-BB of the Rules, 1977. Rule 2- BB specifies that a caste certificate is one issued under the provisions of the Act, 1990. In the present case, the caste certificate issued to the petitioner falls under the provisions of the Act, 1990. Therefore, respondent No.1 possessed the authority to cancel the caste certificate issued to the petitioner.
14. In W.P.No.803/2019, the petitioner's learned counsel presented following citations to support their case:
-7-NC: 2024:KHC:27792 WP No. 803 of 2019 C/W WP No. 668 of 2019
- A coordinate Bench in Laxmibai Vs. State of Karnataka, WP No.80422/2012 (DD 27.11.2013), emphasizing that fraudulently claiming backward class status to secure election violates constitutional provisions and is a fraud on the Constitution.
- The Apex Court in GEETA v. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS noted that undeserving candidates occupying reserved posts must be stopped with a strong hand.
- BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. AVINASH D. MANDIVIKAR AND OTHERS concluded that appointments based on false certificates should be terminated.
15. In D Siddayya and Others v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2018 KAR 3056, the court ruled that writs of quo warranto protect against the illegal usurpation of public office by individuals not entitled to hold such positions.
16. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.138396/2020, disposed of on 10.11.2020, ruled that in matters relating to elections, the appropriate course of action is to decide all issues through an election petition in accordance with the provision contained in Article 329 of the Constitution. Therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the correct remedy. In the present case, the caste certificate issued in favor of -8- NC: 2024:KHC:27792 WP No. 803 of 2019 C/W WP No. 668 of 2019 the petitioner was canceled by the 1st respondent using the authority granted under Section 4B of the Act, 1990. Given that the caste certificate has been canceled, the aforeSAID decision is not applicable to the current circumstances. The aforesaid decision was made in the context of a dispute regarding whether the petitioner, who was declared a returned candidate, actually belonged to the Scheduled Caste category. In those circumstances, the coordinate Bench held that the appropriate remedy was to file an election petition challenging the election of the returned candidate.
17. In the instance , the cancellation of the caste certificate was based on the petitioner's ownership of more than 8 hectares of dry agricultural land, effectively disqualifying the petitioner from claiming eligibility under the Backward Class-B category. This disqualification is fundamental, as it strikes at the very basis of the petitioner's right to contest the election under the reserved category. Given this context, relegating respondent No.3 to the process of raising an election dispute would be an exercise in futility. The core issue that the petitioner was ineligible to contest from the Backward Class-B category due to his land holdings has already been resolved through the cancellation of the caste certificate.
18. Since the caste certificate has been canceled, the petitioner's occupation and holding of the post of Councillor is evidently invalid.
-9-NC: 2024:KHC:27792 WP No. 803 of 2019 C/W WP No. 668 of 2019 19 Consequently, W.P.No.668/2019 is dismissed, and W.P.No.803/2019 is allowed.
20 A writ of quo warranto is issued, removing respondent No.5 in W.P.No.803/2019 from the Councillor position for Ward No.9, Jagalur Town Municipality.
21 The 1st respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and determine whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared the returned candidate in the municipality election for the Councillor position in Ward No.9, Jagalur, in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR,BKM