Karnataka High Court
Gangadharayya S/O Basalingayya ... vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 12 January, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.200187/2021 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
Sri Gangadharayya
S/o Basalingayya Hiremath
Aged about 30 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o At & Post: Karadakal Village
Tq. Lingasuguru
Dist: Raichur
... Appellant
(By Sri Ravi B. Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner
Raichur District
Office of the Deputy Commissioner
Raichur-584101
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Lingasugur Sub-Division
Office of the Assistant Commissioner
Lingasugur
Dist: Raichur-584122
2
3. The Tahsildar
Lingasuguru Taluk
Office of the Tahasildar
Raichur District
4. The Revenue Inspector
Tahasil Office
Lingasuguru
Dist: Raichur
5. The Superintendent of Police
Civil Rights Enforcement
S.P. Office, Police Bhavan
Kalaburagi District
Kalaburagi-585102
... Respondents
(By Sri C. Jagadish, Special Counsel)
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, praying to call for the records in W.P.No.201687/2021 on the
file of learned Single Judge of this Court, to set aside the order impugned
dated 20.09.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.201687/2021 and
consequentially to allow the writ petition as prayed for, etc.
This appeal coming on for orders this day, S.R.Krishna Kumar J.,
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the impugned interim order dated 20.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.201687/2021 by the learned Single Judge whereby the claim of the appellant that he belongs to 'Beda Jangama' caste was referred to the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Kalaburagi. 3
2. It is necessary to extract the prayers sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition, which read as under:
1) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order in case No.RDS 1100378 passed by the 1st respondent authority dated 03/12/2020 as at Annexure - F rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner seeking for issuance of caste certificate and consequentially to set aside the order of 2nd and 3rd respondent authorities dated 19/03/2018 and 05/10/2018 bearing No.Sam/Kam/Sakaala-1/appeal 08/2018 as at Annexure - B and C as illegal and arbitrary.
2) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to issue caste certificate by referring to the documents relied upon by the petitioner by holding local inspection after due enquiry, in the interest of justice and equity.
3) Pass any order as this Honourable court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
3. A perusal of the memorandum of writ petition, documents produced by the appellant and the prayers sought for by the appellant will clearly indicate that the grievance of the petitioner is directed against the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned orders at Annexure-B dated 4 19.03.2018 passed by the Tahsildar, Annexure-C dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Annexure-F dated 03.12.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, all of whom have rejected the claim of the appellant that he belongs to 'Beda Jangama' caste. It is the specific contention of the appellant in the writ petition as well as before this court that the impugned orders challenged in the writ petition are contrary to the material on record as well as provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointment, Etc.) Act, 1990 and consequently the impugned orders passed by all the three authorities deserve to be set aside. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant before us that the appellant never sought for reference of the dispute before the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Kalaburagi and that the limited and restricted scope of the petition before the learned Single Judge is with regard to the validity, legality and correctness of the impugned orders and as such, the learned Single Judge committed an error in referring the dispute to the CRE Cell in 5 the facts and circumstances of the present case and the consequential order directing impleadment of the Superintendent of Police, CRE Cell, Kalaburagi as additional respondent No.5 is also incorrect and erroneous and the same deserves to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that having regard to the dispute in controversy as to whether the appellant belongs to 'Veerashaiva Lingayat jangama' caste or 'Beda Jangama' caste, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in referring the dispute to the CRE Cell, Kalaburagi by impleading the Superintendent of Police as respondent No.5 and as such impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference by this court in the present appeal.
5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the light of the material on record including the pleadings and documents of the parties as well as the impugned orders passed by the Thasildar, Assistant 6 Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner which were assailed in the writ petition, the scope of the writ petition was restricted to examination of the legality, validity and correctness of the said impugned orders and consequently, the question of referring the dispute to the CRE Cell would not arise particularly when no such request was made either by the appellant or respondents before the learned Single Judge. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions in the writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge referring the dispute to the CRE Cell cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 20.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.201687/2021 is hereby set aside.7
(iii) The learned Single Judge is directed to proceed to dispose of the writ petition on merits and in accordance with law.
(iv) All rival contentions urged by both the sides are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE swk/BL