Karnataka High Court
Prabhu vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
R
RESERVED ON : 17.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200107/2025
BETWEEN:
PRABHU S/O BHAMALA CHAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURIST,
SOCIAL SERVICE,
MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
R/O GHAMSUBAI TANDA, BONTHI,
TQ. AURAD, DIST:BIDAR - 585 - 326.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI. GANESH S KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, 5TH FLOOR,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEHDI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT CASTE VERTIFICATION COMMITTEE,
BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR-585 401.
4. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
(CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE),
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
5. THE DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR - 585 401.
REPRESENTED BY IS MEMBER SECRETARY,
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR - 585 401.
7. THE TAHSILDAR,
BIDAR - 585 401.
8. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
DHABKA REVENUE CIRCLE,
AURAD-B,
DIST: BIDAR - 585 426.
9. SRI. NARASINGH S/O THUKARAM,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCC: NOT MENTIONED,
R/O HOUSE NO.1/124,
HALAHALLI VILLAGE, KAMALANAGAR TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 417.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. JAGADISH SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R1 TO R8;
SRI. ADITHYA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R9)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 17.03.2025
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.203394/2023 AND TO PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
ORDER AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED AND
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY,
H.P. SANDESH J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
-3-
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) This intra Court appeal, under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.203394/2023, challenging the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the learned Single Judge.
3. Brief factual matrix involved in the lis are as under:
4. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.203394/2023 for the following reasons:
i. Quash the notice of enquiry dated
22.11.2023 issued by respondent no.2
in the file No.SKNI/MI.JA.KO-
3/DAAVE-11/2023-24, the copy of
which is at Annexure-A;
ii. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
-4-
5. The contention of the petitioner is that:
The petitioner was born in Karnataka on 06.07.1969 at Village Bonti Gumsabai Tanda, District Bidar and he belongs to Lambani (Banjara Caste) which is a Scheduled Caste in Karnataka). For this, he relies on the birth certificate issued by the Competent Authority under the statute of Birth and Death Registration Act, in Form No.5.
His entire family since time memorial residing in Karnataka. His name is found in voter list for the year 1993 and in the subsequent revised voter list, since then with respect to Aurad-B Constituency.
Earlier to 2008, the Aurad-B Constituency was a General Constituency. Since 2008, the Assembly seat from Aurad-B Constituency has been reserved for Scheduled Caste.
6. The petitioner applied for caste certificate with the Tahsildar, Aurad-B Taluk. The Tahsildar, in terms of the powers confirmed under Section 4A of Karnataka Schedule Caste & Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 -5- ('Act of 1990' for short), after holding inquiry as contemplated issued the caste certificate.
7. The petitioner applied for a caste certificate in the year 2013 for lifetime validity. The same was issued by the concerned Tahsildar in terms of Section 4A of Act of 1990. The petitioner contested for the Election in 2013 and declared as a successful candidate and elected to the seat of State Assembly from Aurad-B Constituency, which is reserved for Scheduled Caste.
8. One Sri.Shankarrao Thippanna Doddi made a complaint to the then Minister of Social Welfare on 16.02.2014, for exposing the cause of the Members of Scheduled Caste Committee, in the capacity of District President of Scheduled Caste Community of a National political party, alleging that the petitioner is not a resident of Karnataka as he migrated from the State of Maharashtra and does not belong to Scheduled Caste. In response to the complaint, the Hon'ble Minister for Social Welfare referred the matter to the Secretary of Social Welfare Department to hold an enquiry. The Secretary in turn referred the matter to the Additional Director General -6- of Police (Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement) ('ADGP- DCRE' for short). The ADGP-DCRE further referred the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, DCRE, Kalaburgi for enquiry.
9. The Superintendent of Police, DCRE, called for a report from the concerned Tahsildar on 22.05.2015. The concerned Tahsildar submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, DCRE, Kalaburgi, to the effect that the appellant is born in Karnataka and permanent resident of Karnataka and he belongs to Lambani caste, which is a Scheduled Caste in Karnataka.
10. The Superintendent and Police, DCRE, despite the report by the Tahsildar submitted his own report on 01.01.2016, stating that the appellant has migrated to Karnataka from Maharashtra State and does not belong to Scheduled Caste and he has contested the Election in the year 2008 and 2013 for the reserved Constituency on the alleged false certificate. Based on the report of the Superintendent of Police, DCRE, the ADGP-DCRE referred the matter to District Caste Verification Committee ('DCVC' -7- for short), for an enquiry by his requisition dated 08.08.2006.
11. It is further contention of the petitioner that a caste certificate issued in the year 2008 is not called in question by any person or authority before the concerned authority under the provisions of Act of 1990.
12. Upon the requisition the DCVC registered a case in case No.C&V CR/98/2016-2017 and proceeded with enquiry. In the said enquiry Sri.Shankarrao Doddi was shown as complainant and the petitioner as respondent. The Committee after holding a detailed inquiry in terms of Section 4C of Act of 1990, exercising power of Civil Court under the provisions of Section 4E, summoned the documents and received the documents from both the parties and after conducting the enquiry as contemplated under the said provision, has conclusively held that the appellant is born in Karnataka on 06.07.1969 and his name was found in the voter's list of 1993 with respect to Aurad-B Constituency and the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is valid by its order dated 20.11.2017.
-8-
13. Sri.Shankarrao Doddi aggrieved by the order passed by DCVC dated 20.11.2017, challenged the same in W.P.No.58264/2017. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available under Section 4D(i) of Act of 1990. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be dismissed as not maintainable, with the liberty to prefer an appeal under the provisions of Act of 1990.
14. Sri. Shankarrao Doddi, preferred an appeal in Appeal No.1/2018-19 before the Commissioner under Section 4D of Act of 1990. Upon institution of the appeal, the Appellate Authority issued notice, which was the subject matter in W.P.No.201341/2018 filed by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge of this Court, taking the contention that the appeal is not maintainable. The said contention was negatived by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the petition was dismissed with the observation to raise all the contentions before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was fiercely contested by -9- both the parties before the Commissioner-Appellate Authority. However, the complainant Sri.Shankarrao Doddi withdrew the appeal on 07.05.2018, by filing a memo, which was permitted on cost of Rs.1,00,000/.
15. On 06.03.2020, one Sri.Ravindraswamy, calling himself an aspirant to the State Assembly Election of 2018, filed a revision under Section 4F, calling in question the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 10.04.2013, with a prayer to cancel the certificate and issue direction to DCRE to lodge a criminal case against the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner upon receipt of the revision petition issued an endorsement, rejecting the petition on the ground that the matter has already been concluded under Section 4D before the DCVC vide order dated 20.11.2017. The said endorsement was the subject matter in W.P.No.225917/2020 by Sri. Ravindraswamy for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the endorsement and for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry in terms of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, directing the Deputy Commissioner to hold enquiry, vide order dated
- 10 -
07.05.2018 i.e., subsequent passing order for withdrawal of the appeal.
16. Subsequent to rejection of revision filed by Sri.Ravindraswamy, one Sri.Vijay Kumar, filed another revision before the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 4F calling in question the very same caste certificate.
17. Sri.Vijay Kumar approached this Court in W.P.No.226907/2020, for a Writ of Mandamus against the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar to decide the revision pending before him expeditiously. Both the writ petitions filed by Sri.Ravindraswamy and Sri.Vijay Kumar were connected and heard. During the course of hearing, Sri.Ravindraswamy filed an application seeking to add a prayer, for Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the DCVC. The application came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and subsequently both the petitions were disposed of allowing the petitions, quashing the order passed by the DCVC dated 20.11.2017 and remanding the matter to the DCVC for enquiry afresh, by affording opportunity to all the
- 11 -
parties by order dated 01.02.2022. The common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.02.2022 was called in question by the petitioner herein in W.A.No.200032/2022 and W.A.No.200031/2022. In the said writ appeal, Sri.Ravindraswamy appeared and filed W.A.Crob.No.200001/2022, calling in question the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of remanding the matter to DCVC.
18. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court connected all the matters stated supra and disposed of by a common order dated 30.12.2023 allowing the writ appeals filed by petitioner and dismissing the writ appeal cross-objection filed by respondent No.9. The reason assigned by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court which starts under the heading 'Analysis' from paragraph Nos.23 to order, is extracted for easy reference.
"Analysis Reg. Applicability of Act, 1990 and Rules 1992:
23. Having regard to the contention of the Counsel for writ petitioners Vijaya Kumar and Ravindra Swamy that the provisions of the Act 1990 and Rules 1992 are applicable only to the caste certificate issued for the purpose of education andpublic employment and therefore DCVC could not have issued validity certificate to Prabhu Chavan regarding caste certificateissued for the purpose of contesting the elections, the first question is whether the Act and Rules apply to the caste certificate issued for the purpose of an election.
- 12 -
24. It is to be noted that the title of the Act is Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990. If the Act was only for the purpose of education and employment, the word `etc.´ could not have been used in the title of the Act. It cannot be presumed that word in the statute is superfluously or redundantly used. Therefore it has to be concluded that the certificate obtained under the Act 1990 and the Rules 1992 for the purpose other than education and employment are also governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
25. The larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 30.01.2020 in G.Manjunath´s case referred to supra which related to a caste certificate issued for the purpose of contesting election held as follows:
"We are informed by learned Counsel appearing at the Bar that there is a specialized committee which has been set up by the State of Karnataka to determine the various caste claims that are made for purposes such as employment and admissions to the educational institutions. However, it is certain that the Verification Committee is a specialized committee which ordinarily looks into such matters and determines the validity of caste claim. Therefore, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we consider it appropriate to refer the following question to the said committee for determination:
(i) Whether the appellant viz., G.Manjunatha belongs to the scheduled caste known as "Budaga Jangama' or whether he belongs to the `Byragi' caste of Other Backward Classes in the State of Karnataka.
The aforesaid committee shall hear the parties and permit them to lead oral and documentary evidence. The enquiry shall be conducted by the Committee according to the Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990. The Committee shall submit its report before this Court within a period of three months from the date of first meeting of the committee on the issue."
(Emphasis Supplied)
26. In Bharati Reddy's case referred to supra the certificate issued by DCVC for the purpose of election was upheld. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the caste certificate issued for the purpose of election is not subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and therefore DCVC had no jurisdiction to issue validity certificate.
- 13 -
Reg. Maintainability of Revision Petition:
27. To serve the purpose of writ of mandamus, the revision petitions of Vijayakumar and Ravindra Swamy before the Deputy Commissioner shall be maintainable. Mr.Ravindra Swamy and Vijaya Kumar in their revision petitions filed under Section 4-F of the Act on 06.03.2020 and 26.05.2020 challenged the caste certificate dated 04.02.2013 issued in favour of Prabhu Chavan. The same caste certificate was admittedly questioned by Shankerrao by filing complaint dated 16.02.2014 before the Minister for Social Welfare Department. On his reference, DCVC conducted the enquiry and issued verification certificate dated 20.11.2017 in favour of Prabhu Chavan considering the material placed before the Committee. In view of such order of DCVC, the order of Tahsildar dated 04.02.2013 issuing caste certificate merged into the order of DCVC and has become integral part of the order of DVCV dated 20.11.2017.
28.Admittedly Shankerrao filed W.P.No.58264/2017 (GM CC) challenging the said order came to be dismissed on 06.03.2018 on the ground that his remedy is to file appeal under Section 4-D(1) of the Act before the Commissioner and the Appellate Authority, Social Welfare Department. Accordingly, he filed Appeal No.1/2018-19. However, the said appeal was dismissed on 07.05.2018 as withdrawn. Consequently, the validity certificate issued by DCVC holds the field until that is set aside by any competent authority.
29. The learned Single Judge holds that though the Commissioner on dismissing the appeal of Shankerrao under the order dated 07.05.2018 had directed the Deputy Commissioner to constitute a Committee, hold an enquiry and submit report within one month, the Deputy Commissioner had not complied the same, under the influence of Prabhu Chavan. Much was argued on behalf of Ravindra Swamy and Vijay Kumar relying on the said observations to impute undue influence to Prabhu Chavan. However, the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.11.2020 itself shows that the Deputy Commissioner had taken action and the learned Single Judge taking exception to that directed the authorities not to precipitate the matter. The said order reads as follows:
"Learned Additional Government Advocate seeks two weeks time to file statement of objections.
Perusal of Annexure - H would clearly establish the fact that the complainant in Appeal No.1/2018-19 before the respondent No.3 herein has made a submission on 27.04.2018 to withdraw the complaint. In furtherance of the same, the respondent No.3 has permitted the complainant therein to withdraw the same by imposing cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has constituted a Committee to
- 14 -
investigate the matter and to file the report within one month.
The respondent No.3 is directed to file affidavit stating under which provision of law, the respondent No.3 has constituted a Committee to investigate the matter.
The respondents are directed not to precipitate the matter in furtherance of Annexure − H dated 07.05.2018.
List this matter on 26.11.2020."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. Under the aforesaid circumstances, there is no merit in the contention that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that Deputy Commissioner did not hold any enquiry under the influence of Prabhu Chavan is inconsistent with his own interim order dated 12.11.2020 and thus erroneous.
31. The Act provides two channels for challenging the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar and the validity certificate issued by the DCVC. Section 4-B of the Act provides for appeal to the Assistant Commissioner against the order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 4-A of the Act for issuance of caste certificate. Section 4-F provides for filing revision against the order passed by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4-A and 4-B of the Act. Whereas Section 4-C of the Act provides for verification of the caste certificate on the application of the candidate to whom the caste certificate is issued or on the application of the educational institutions or the appointing authority in case of an employment. Against an order passed under Section 4-C of the Act, only an appeal lies to the Appellate Authority mentioned under Section 4-D of the Act.
32. At least the finding of this Court in W.P.No.58264/2017 that against the DCVC's order only an appeal under Section 4-D of the Act lies to the Commissioner has become final. Under the aforesaid circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for Prabhu Chavan the attempt of Ravindra Swamy and Vijay Kumar to challenge the order of Tahsildar dated 04.02.2013 by filing revision petition amounts to overreaching the order of this Court in W.P.No.58264/2017. Therefore the said revision petitions were not maintainable. Consequently issuance of mandamus to the Deputy Commissioner would serve no purpose.
Reg. Locus standi, Delay and latches
33. Power under Article 226 of Constitution cannot be exercised if there is delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. To seek mandamus for implementation of the order dated 07.05.2018 the writ petition shall be promptly filed and the persons seeking such mandamus should have
- 15 -
some locus-standi. In Ayub Khan Pataan´s case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle with the proceedings of caste certificate unless he has a locus standi/legal right. Moreover caste certificate issued in favour of Ravindra Swamy itself is under cloud in view of the judgment passed against him in W.A.No.200065/2022.
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 8 of the judgment in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi´s case referred to supra relying on its earlier judgment in Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) LRS14 held that an action, whether on an application of the parties or suo-moto must be taken within the period prescribed by law, if no such period is prescribed under any law, that must be taken within a reasonable time. It was further held that, if an application is made after unreasonably long time, such application is liable to be dismissed.
35. In this case, the first caste certificate was issued in the year 2008, the one under challenge was issued in 2013, DCVC's order was passed on 20.11.2017 and the order of the Commissioner was dated 07.05.2018. Whereas the writ petitions were filed in 2020 without justifying such delay. The caste certificate issued in 2008 was not questioned at all. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order ignoring the aforesaid facts acted contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi´s case referred to supra. Reg. Fraud and undue influence:
36. The entire order of the learned Single Judge reels around the presumption and inference that the DCVC has passed the order dated 20.11.2017 and withdrawal of appeal by Shankerrao was under the political influence of Prabhu Chavan as he was the District in-charge Minister, therefore that amounts to fraud. Prabhu Chavan contends that neither on 04.02.2013, 20.11.2017, 07.05.2018 nor during that period he was a Minister, much less the District in-charge Minister. He claims that the learned Single Judge was prejudiced only based on such bald and scurrilous allegations without any material to substantiate the same. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge's observation that Counsel for Prabhu Chavan during the course of arguments admitted that he was the Minister during that period is incorrect.
37. As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel representing the Advocate on record for Prabhu Chavan, the fraud and undue influence are serious matters and the particulars of the same need to be pleaded and established. Just on the scurrilous allegations, the Courts cannot accept the same, merely because the other party is holding some Public Post. In the writ petitions it was not pleaded that during the above said period Prabhu Chavan was the Minister/District incharge Minister nor the same was
- 16 -
admitted/pleaded in the statement of objections of Prabhu Chavan. The petitioners had not even filed affidavit of Shankerrao or placed any material to show that Prabhu Chavan wielded influence on Shankerrao, Tahsildar, Deputy Commissioner or Members of DCVC. Such imputations should not have been accepted without appropriate pleadings or material to substantiate the same. Order VI Rule 4 of CPC mandates that the particulars of fraud and undue influence shall be pleaded. It was contended that Order VI Rule 4 of CPC is not applicable to the writ proceedings. In submitting so, learned Counsel for Ravindra Swamy was oblivious of Rule 2(2) and 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 which say that the petitioner shall plead all relevant facts which have given occasion to the petition and wherever not provided in the Rules, CPC shall apply.
38. The Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court as long back in 1951 in para 22 of the judgment in Bishundeo´s case referred to supra in this regard has held as follows:
"22. We turn next to the questions of undue influence and coercion. Now it is to be observed that these have not been separately pleaded. It is true they may overlap in part in some cases but they are separate and separable categories in law and must be separately pleaded. It is also to be observed that no proper particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid.
There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. "
(Emphasis Supplied)
39. The learned Single Judge acted contrary to the aforesaid judgment in Bishundeo´s case and facts and circumstances of the case in holding that Prabhu Chavanobtained caste certificate and validity certificate by wielding undue influence on the concerned Officers/officials. Reg. Amendment application and principles of natural Justice:
- 17 -
40. So far as quashing DCVC's order based on an amendment application, in para 8 of the judgment in V.K.Majotra´s case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in issuing the directions beyond the pleadings, the Judges of the High Court overstepped their jurisdiction. It was further observed that the writ Courts would be well advised to decide the petition on the points raised in the petition and in a rare case any additional points are to be raised, then the concerned and the affected parties should be put to notice on additional points to satisfy the principles of natural justice.
41. In view of the above judgment, learned Single Judge committed serious error in allowing the amendment application which was filed belatedly without hearing the affected parties. On allowing such application not even the petition was amended and opportunity was given to Prabhu Chavan to file his counter to the amended petition. By way of amendment only a prayer was sought to be incorporated to quash the order of DCVC dated 20.11.2017 without setting forth any grounds for the same. Thereby the principles of natural justice were glaringly violated vitiating the impugned order.
42. It was contended that the order of DCVC was the outcome of the fraud, therefore the same was nullity, warranted quashing even in the absence of a prayer by way of amendment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 6 of the judgment in M.K.Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil´s case referred to supra in this regard held as follows:
"6. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case. We are of the view that the order passed inter parties in C.R.P. 3440 of 1977 dated 2.11.1977, has become final, and it concludes the matter. The observations made in the proceedings, at the instance of the 1st respondent regarding the validity of the order of the Board, in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977, will not, in any way, affect the legality and validity of the proceedings declining to implead respondents No.3 and 4 or the order passed in Revision therefrom-C.R.P.3440 of 1977. It is true that the proceedings dated 28.6.1977 was observed to be void in law in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977, filed by the first respondent. In our opinion, even a void order or decision rendered between parties cannot be said to be non- existent in all cases and in all situations. Ordinarily, such an order will, in fact be effective inter parties until it is successfully avoided or challenged in higher forum. Mere use of the
- 18 -
word "void" is not determinative of its legal impact. The word "void" has a relative rather than an absolute meaning. It only conveys the idea that the order is invalid or illegal. It can be avoided. There are degrees of invalidity, depending upon the gravity of the infirmity, as to whether it is, fundamental or otherwise and in this case, the only complaint about the initiation of the suo moto proceedings by Board was, that it was not initiated on intimation by the State Land Board about the non-filing of the statement as required by Section 85(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In our opinion, this is not a case where the infirmity is fundamental. It is unnecessary to consider the matter further."
(Emphasis supplied)
43. The very fact of Shankerrao challenging the order of DCVC before this Court in writ petition No.58264/2017 and before the Commissioner in appeal goes to show that the parties never treated the same as void. When the said order was considered by this Court and the Commissioner, at this stage, it is not open to contend that the order was null and void, therefore even in the absence of prayer to that effect the learned Single Judge could have quashed that. Reg. Scope of interference in DCVC order:
44. According to Prabhu Chavan, the caste/validity certificate issued in his favour is being challenged incessantly by one or the other just to harass him due to political rivalry. The above narrated facts and circumstances go to show that though the caste certificate was originally issued in 2008, that was not challenged. Prabhu Chavan admittedly was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly of Aurad B Taluk since 2008 continuously. His trouble started when he was elected for the second term also during 2013-2014. There onwards one after another as and when they desired initiated proceedings against him in the garb of validity of caste certificate/DCVC order. That probabilizes his contention that his opponents abusing the process of the Court are initiating such proceedings. The scheme of Rule 7 (4) and (5) shows that enquiry by the DCVC and the appeal against the order of DCVC shall be concluded in a time bound manner. The appeal shall be disposed of within 45 days from the date of filing of the appeal. Those provisions also indicate that DCVC order cannot be meddled at the sweet will of disgruntled party after lapse of several years.
45. The larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of the judgment in Bharati Reddy´s case referred to supra has held there is statutory presumption that caste certificate would be valid until cancelled by competent authority. It was further held that the High Court was not justified in issuing a
- 19 -
writ of quo-warranto prima facie doubting the same to be fraudulent. In this case also the learned Single Judge doubted the caste certificate/DCVC order to be fraudulent only on the ground that Prabhu Chavan was the District incharge Minister, during that period which was factually in correct.
46. In Madhuri Patils´ case referred to supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court should not under Article 226 of the Constitution ordinarily interfere with the finding of the verification Committee.
47. In para 10 of the judgment in Chitra´s case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the DCVC upheld the caste certificate that shall not be reopened unless that is challenged in the Appellate Forum. It was further held that repeated enquiries for verification of caste certificates would be detrimental to the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes. It was held that unless the caste certificates are vitiated by fraud or without inquiry, they shall not be reopened. In para 11 of the judgment it was held that State Level Scrutiny Committee did not had the power to reopen the caste certificate that was issued by DCVC long back without any appeal filed against that.
48. The judgments relied on by learned Counsel for Ravindra Swamy and Vijay Kumar in A.V.Papayya's case, Ramesh Gandhi's case, Real Estate Agency´s case cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of the present case. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the cross- objection fails. Hence the following:
ORDER W.A.Nos.200031/2022 and 200032/2022 are hereby allowed with costs.
Cross objection No.200001/2022 filed in W.A.No.200031/2022 is hereby dismissed.
The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside.
W.P.No.225917/2020 and W.P.No.226907/2020 are hereby dismissed with costs."
19. The order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the above Writ Appeal, was a subject matter
- 20 -
before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Civil)No.7747/2023. The Hon'ble Apex Court on 01.05.2023, dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that no case for interference under Article 136 is made out.
20. In the year 2023, the Assembly Election was declared for the State of Karnataka. The respondent No.9 contested the election against the petitioner under the reserved Assembly seat. The respondent No.9 raised objections before the Returning Officer on the nomination filed by the petitioner, contending that petitioner born in Maharashtra and migrated to Karnataka, hence, he is not a person belonging to Scheduled Caste in Karnataka, and as such not entitled to contest the Election from Aurad-B Constituency, which is a reserved seat for Scheduled Caste. The objections raised by respondent No.9 was not considered and nomination was accepted.
21. Subsequent to the Election the petitioner was declared as successful candidate.
22. The respondent No.9 on 06.11.2023 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 4D of Act of 1990, calling in question the order passed by the
- 21 -
DCVC dated 20.11.2017. The appeal filed by the respondent No.9 was registered No.SKNI/MI.JA.KO- 3/DAAVE-11/2023-24.
23. A notice of appeal was issued on the appellant to show his cause vide notice dated 20.11.2022. The notice issued by the Appellate Authority is the subject matter in the present writ petition.
24. Before the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has contended that the appeal filed by Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, in the year 2018, calling in question the order passed by the DCVC dated 20.11.2017 ended in withdrawal and the same operates as res-judicata.
25. It was further contended that, the second round of litigation by Sri.Ravindraswamy and Sri.Vijay Kumar, both ended in failure with the order by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in writ appeals, which ultimately attained finality with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition, before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the said appeal, the contention of fraud and limitation has been extensively considered and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the appeal preferred after two years
- 22 -
from the date of passing of the order by the DCVC, is hit by delay referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi.
26. He further submits that so far as abuse of process of law, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that, the repeated enquiries by one or the other person, on the same issue on the Caste Certificate, amounts to abuse of process of law, as the Scheme under the Provisions of Act of 1990, which lays down procedure for disposal of enquiry and appeal in a time bound manner cannot be meddled with at the sweet will of disgruntled parties after lapse of several years.
27. It was further contended by the petitioner that the question regarding fraud and undue influence has also been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, holding that in the absence of pleadings with particulars as envisaged under Order VI Rule 4, the petition itself is not maintainable.
28. The petitioner also contended that the earlier order operates as res-judicata, so also comes within the purview of the doctrine of merger. The appeal now filed
- 23 -
after 6 years by another party only to wreck political vengeance, is not permissible to be proceeded further, within the provisions of Act of 1990, on the principle of Rule of finality to a judicial pronouncement and orders passed by the authorities, due to lapse of considerable and reasonable time.
29. The contentions raised by the petitioner were opposed by the learned Special Counsel to the authorities as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 on the premise that the earlier appeal filed by Sri.Shankarrao Rao Doddi, calling in question the DCVC order having been withdrawn, there is no deliberation on the order passed by the DCVC and it has not attained finality within the scheme and provisions contemplated under the Act of 1990.
30. It is their further contention that since there is no finality and adjudication, on the caste certificate by the Appellate Authority, the same cannot be termed as res- judicata and also the doctrine of merger canvassed by the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
- 24 -
31. It was further argued in unison by both the counsel, supra that if a document is obtained by fraud, the entire rights and interest claimed under the said certificate get vitiated, as fraud extinguishes all rights. In those circumstances the delay is of not much importance and becomes secondary to consider, on the principles that fraud and justice never dwell together. Further, it was urged that the respondent No.9 become an aggrieved party within the meaning of word used in Section 4D, when he has contested the Election against the petitioner in 2023 and has got all rights to prefer the appeal. The limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and it is required to be considered by the Appellate Authority on the basis of facts placed before it and not at the initial stage when the notice is issued and accordingly sought to dismiss the petition.
32. The learned single judge upon considering the rival contentions in all framed 13 points for consideration which reads as under:
1. Can Respondent No.9 being a third-party to the earlier appeal, file an appeal under Section 4D of the Act of 1990, and a notice of enquiry be issued in furtherance thereof, in the background of the earlier
- 25 -
appeal having been withdrawn by the earlier appellant therein?
2. Can Respondent No. 9 be said to have locus standi to file the appeal under section 4D on the ground that he is a contestant in the election to be Member of Legislative Assembly for Aurad constituency or would he have to separately file an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner?
3. Whether the Petitioner can maintain the present writ petition challenging a show cause notice or a notice of enquiry?
4. To maintain a valid appeal under Section 4D of the Act of 1990, what is the prescribed period of limitation that would be applicable thereto?
5. On account of the earlier order passed by the DCVC, and the earlier appeal filed having been withdrawn, would the present appeal filed by Respondent No. 9 be barred by the principle of Res Judicata having attained finality, and in that regard amount to an abuse of the legal process by initiating repeated proceedings?
6. Would Respondent No.2 be regarded as Functus Officio on account of the earlier appeal having been withdrawn, and thus estopped from adjudicating on the fresh appeal?
7. Whether a person born in a caste or community, which is not notified as a scheduled tribe or scheduled caste in the state of birth, upon migration to another state, wherein that caste or community is notified as a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, be entitled to the benefit granted to such scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in the state to which the person has migrated to?
8. Even if an election petition were to be filed, could the election tribunal, be empowered to decide on the validity or otherwise of the caste certificate under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 or would it have to be done by the authorities as constituted under the Act of 1990?
- 26 -
9. In the present case, can this Court go into the aspect of validity or otherwise of the caste certificate of the Petitioner or would it have to be left to the concerned authority under the Act of 1990?
10. Can the High Court consider the disputed question of facts and allegations of fraud in the present writ petition or would it have to be decided by the concerned authority under the Act of 1990?
11. Whether the doctrine of merger would apply in the instant case?
12. Whether this Court can intercede and adjudicate upon the impugned notice?
13. What order?"
33. The learned single judge has answered all the points for consideration against the petitioner, holding that the respondent No.9 being the third party to the earlier appeal can maintain an appeal independently, despite the earlier appeal having been withdrawn and has locus standi to call in question the order passed by DCVC dated 20.11.2017.
34. Further the learned Single Judge has held that the petition filed by the petitioner, calling in question the initial notice is not maintainable and the doctrine of merger as well as res judicata as contended and raised by the petitioner cannot be considered on the premise that the said doctrine of res judicata is not qualified with the
- 27 -
phrase-"has been heard and finally decided by the Court", since the earlier appeal which was preferred and subsequently withdrawn, the order passed by DCVC was intact and not considered and adjudicated upon. Hence the rule of res judicata as well as merger are not applicable to the case on hand.
35. Further on the limitation as well as on the point of aggrieved person, the learned Single Judge has held that since the respondent No.9 has contested the Election in 2023 against the petitioner comes within the purview of aggrieved person relying on the judgment of M.V.Dabholkar's case and held that he comes within the ambit of aggrieved person and the limitation to file the appeal starts the moment he becomes aggrieved person and only thereafter the knowledge is attributable, so far as filing the appeal. As such, the appeal filed is within time.
36. So far as the point Nos.7 and 8 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has held that a person who is born in a caste or community which is not notified as a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in the State of birth upon migration to another State wherein the said caste or
- 28 -
community is notified as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is not entitled to claim the benefit of that caste in the migrated State. So far as Point No.8 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has held that the appeal under the Provisions of Act of 1990 is well maintainable and cannot be answered in the Election Petition, since the power is enjoined with the Authorities under Act, 1990 and not in the Election Petition.
37. Having answered all the points raised against the petitioner, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the writ appeal is only on the revision petitions and since there is no deliberations on the appeal provision. Further held that, even the Co-ordinate Bench has held that only the appeal is maintainable against the order passed by the DCVC under Section 4C and not the revision. With these reasons, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge is called in question in the present writ appeal.
- 29 -
38. Heard Sri.Prabhuling K.Navadagi, learned Senior counsel for Sri.Ganesh.S Kalburgi, learned counsel for appellant, Sri.C.Jagadish, learned Special counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8 and Sri.Aditya Narayan, learned counsel for respondent No.9 and perused the entire appeal papers.
39. The main issue involves in this appeal to be considered is whether the respondent No.9 be considered as an aggrieved person within Section 4D of Act, 1990 and has locus-standi to file appeal, despite the earlier proceedings on the same subject matter once reached finality before the Co-ordinate Bench, in earlier Writ appeal on the contention of limitation, fraud, undue influence and abuse of process of law. Further, on the issue of doctrine of res-judicata and merger raised by the petitioner.
40. Sri.Navadgi, learned Senior counsel, stressed on these issues and argued that the points formulated by the learned Single Judge have already been dealt with and answered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in writ
- 30 -
appeal i.e., on the point of limitation, fraud and undue influence, so also abuse of process of law. As such, the same is now not available to the learned Single Judge to dwell upon either on the maintainability of the appeal or on the limitation, fraud and undue influence and abuse of process of law. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in earlier round of litigation in the aforesaid writ appeal has clearly held 'on the scope of interference in DCVC order', stating that once a matter which has been settled and attained finality way back in the year 2017, cannot be called in question again and again putting the other party in greater hardship. In view of the scheme of Act, 1990 and the scheme of Rule 7(4) and (5) of Rules, 1992, which indicates that the enquiry by the DCVC and the appeal against the order of DCVC shall be concluded in a time bound manner. Further held that these provisions indicate that the DCVC order cannot be meddled at the sweet will of disgruntled party after lapse of several years. The issue involved in this case is regarding reservation of Assembly seat which applies to entire Constituency. It is not in dispute, per learned Senior Counsel that, earlier to 2008,
- 31 -
the seat was not reserved for Scheduled Caste and it was a General Constituency. Since year 1993, the name of the appellant is in the voter's list, so also his family members.
His caste is shown as 'Hindu Banjara', which is a Scheduled Caste in Karnataka. Since 2008, the appellant contested in Election and declared successful and as of he is holding the seat. The entire people of the constituency, including the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste have accepted the petitioner as their leader and representative to the reserved seat as he belongs to Scheduled Caste. Time and again with repeated objection and enquiries the appellant is burdened with untold hardship and made to run authorities after the authorities and Courts after the Courts, is a clear abuse of process of law and against democratic set up. The respondent No.9 and other persons in the earlier rounds who were the political rivalries and belonging to a particular party not successful in getting their person elected in the election cannot be permitted to de-seat the petitioner on hyper technicalities by filing petitions after petitions taking advantage of provisions contemplated under the Act of
- 32 -
1990. These types of interference not only amounts to abuse of process of law, but also disturbs the administration of justice.
41. Learned Senior counsel, stressed on the point that a person who has been declared successful in a democratic way cannot be de-seated on hyper technicalities, now put in action, by means of an appeal by respondent No. 9 under Section 4D, calling in question the order dated 20.11.2017 after 6 years, taking the contention that the order came to his knowledge only when he has contested to the Election. The learned Single Judge has accepted the contention holding that the Respondent No.9 is an 'aggrieved person' and qualified to befit in the expression only when he has contested to the Election and the limitation to prefer an appeal starts once he contest the election and the knowledge to the order impugned in appeal starts only thereafter.
42. Sri.Navadgi, learned Senior Counsel submits that, on certificate issued, the appellant contested the election with respect to a Constituency seat, reserved for Schedule Caste category, if for some reason, but without
- 33 -
admitting that, the appellant is not entitled, affects the entire voters and public at large coming within the constituency. The reason stated by the learned Single Judge expanding the scope of the word 'aggrieved person' while answering the point on 'aggrieved person' with reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court M.V. Dabholkar's case. The learned Single Judge considered the arguments of the Special Counsel to hold that the Respondent No.9 come within the ambit of the word supra, on the premise that the Courts are bound to protect the interest affecting the depressed category more particularly the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category, which is required to be protected both internally and externally, but limiting the same, subject to the rider that the person to fit within the word aggrieved person must contest the election is just opposite to the judgment relied on supra. On this, the learned senior counsel submits that, the reason of learned Single Judge is not sustainable in law, inasmuch as the discussion and finding are contrary to one another. Even if but not admitting the respondent No.9 is to be considered as aggrieved person,
- 34 -
but so far as knowledge is concerned, starts from the date of passing of the order by the DCVC. To buttress his contentions, Sri.Navadgi, invited our attention to the paper publications produced at page Nos. 466, 467, 468, 469 and 470, of the appeal memorandum viz., the publication in 'The Times of India' dated 18.12.2014; in Deccan Harald dated 17.12.2014; in Udayvani dated 17.12.2014; in Vijay Karnataka dated 18.12.2014 and Praja Vani on 18.12.2014 under the following headings:
"THE HINDU dated 18.12.2014 INDIA'S From Mobile to domicile: Prabhu Chavan in fresh controversy Deccan Herald dated 17.12.2014 Cong Seeks Judicial Probe against Aurad MLA GzÀAiÀĪÁt ¢£ÁAPÀ 17.12.2014 ±Á¸ÀPÀ ZÀªÁít «gÀÄzÀÞ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ vÀ¤PÉUÉ DUÀæºÀ «dAiÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 18.12.2014 ±Á¸ÀPÀ Z˪Áít «gÀÄzÀÞ ¹JAUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀæeÁªÁt ¢£ÁAPÀ 18.12.2014 ¥Àj²µÀÖgÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ PÀ¹zÀ ZÀªÁuï: ±ÀAPÀgÀgÁªï DgÉÆÃ¥À"
43. Sri.Navadgi, learned Senior counsel contends that Sri.Shankarrao Doddi was the President of District Scheduled Caste Wing of the Congress. In that capacity,
- 35 -
he has filed complaint to the concerned Minister, for exposing cause of the Members of the Scheduled Caste stating that the seat occupied by the petitioner amounts to taking away genuine rights of the member belonging to Scheduled Caste internally, which subsequently ended in enquiry with the DCVC passing order on 20.11.2017, exercising power as of a Civil Court under Section 4E of Act of 1990, holding conclusively that the Caste Certificate issued is in accordance with law and valid, which ultimately called in question before the Commissioner and ended in withdrawing the appeal. Since it is a seat for the Constituent Assembly and not restricted to an ordinary post with reference to a particular post or seat in Government Employment or Education institutions, it affects the entire voters with respect to the Constituency and attracted the headlines of the Print media is within the knowledge and notice of the entire public at large, including the respondent No.9 and other persons in the earlier round of litigation as these persons are active politicians of the concerned Constituency and members of particular political parties, with respect of the complaint on
- 36 -
the caste of the appellant and the subsequent enquires on the same.
44. He further asserts that considering the age of respondent No.9 and he being an active politician in the Constituency now cannot approbate and reprobate by stating that he came to know regarding the certificate issued in favour of appellant only when he has contested in the election. A person need not contest in the election to come within the purview of 'aggrieved person', to challenge an order as held by the learned Single Judge, is unsustainable in law, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.V.Dabholkar's case, the reason being once the expression is given a wider definition cannot be restricted with a rider/qualification that only on contest against the opponent in the Election.
45. The appellant has been elected as Member of Legislative Assembly, since 2008 under the reserved category. The entire District is aware of the earlier proceedings, as the earlier complaint has attracted the headlines of the media, both press as well as electronic. In these circumstances, the conclusions of the learned Single
- 37 -
Judge, that the appeal filed is within time, is against the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench and that the same cannot be reopened once it has attained finality on lapse of considerable time. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier appeals has clearly held on limitation supra referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka1 and Chhedi Lal Yadav Vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) LRS2. The learned senior counsel further argued that, the learned Single Judge has not considered the entire judgment passed on other aspects of the matter including limitation.
46. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himanshu, Devan and Sonali Devan and others,3 stressed on paragraph No.32; in Kunhayammed and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Another4 dated 19.07.2007, stressed on 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2 (2017) 6 SCC 459 3 Civil Appeal No.1434/2023 Dt:18.08.2023 4 (2000) Supp. 1 SCR Dt:19.07.2000
- 38 -
paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9; in HPCL Biofuels Ltd. Vs. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad5 stressed on paragraph No.47 and in Puja Ferro Alloy Vs. State of Goa and Others6 stressed on paragraph Nos.23 and 24.
47. The first and second judgment are on the doctrine of merger. The another judgment is on the point of abuse of process of law by persisting claims on the caste certificate by one party or the other as in the case on hand.
48. With this, the learned Senior counsel submits that the appellant had been made to answer three unnecessary legal battles earlier. First by Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, second by Sri.Ravindraswamy and third by Sri.Vijay Kumar and now by respondent No.9. In the circumstances, the Courts are duty bound to set a knot at the threshold of such abuse of process of law. He stressed on the ground of res-judicata, to contend that the earlier order passed by the DCVC, which once challenged and withdrawn by one person belonging to the same community, same caste, 5 2024 ACC Online SC 3190 6 2025 ACC Online SC 326
- 39 -
operates as res-judicata in the subsequent appeal, since the person approached the Court earlier in a representative capacity, exposing the cause of community members, has attained finality for all these times and now permitting to file another appeal on the same ground against the same issue involved i.e., the caste certificate, but by the different person is opposed to public policy and justice, and not permissible in law.
49. Learned Senior counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider these aspects of the matter, especially regarding knowledge with respect to the entire constituency, since the contest is for a reserved Assembly seat and not to a particular post, to a Government employment or seat in any educational institution which affects the rights of an individual person concerned against another, in the case on hand, it affects the entire Constituency. Therefore, the knowledge is attributable to entire Constituency, as the challenge earlier taken in two unsuccessful rounds, now cannot be permitted by the third round on hyper technicalities,
- 40 -
contending that the appeal is maintainable from the date of knowledge.
50. The learned Single Judge has missed to notice, that an appeal which is filed belatedly required to be considered with its repercussions on the larger public interest. A person who has been declared successful in a democratic way made to answer again and again on the same settled issue amounts to abuse of process of law. The said fact which has been considered by Co-ordinate Bench has been missed by the learned Single Judge. With this he sought to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
51. Sri.C. Jagdish, learned Special counsel for the Authorities with all fairness submits that the issue involved in the earlier appeal before the Appellate Authority had not attained finality, since the appeal filed was withdrawn and the said withdrawal will not come in the way of respondent No.9, in preferring the appeal as the same affects the entire caste internally, as the allegations against the applicant, is, he has obtained false certificate as per the earlier round of litigation. The mere delay cannot be
- 41 -
construed as a China wall to block the vision of the Courts to see beyond, in the manner in which the certificate was issued. If a certificate is a product of fraud and misrepresentation, mere delay will not come in the way to challenge the same, as the fraud is having the effect of vitiating all the benefits taken despite the delay.
52. The learned Special counsel has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Bank of Baroda & Another Vs. Avinash D.Mandivikar & Others7
(ii) Sri.Satish Choudappa Honnali Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.8
(iii) State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsingh Parmar and Another9
(iv) Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr.10
53. The learned Special counsel stresses upon Paragraph No. 11 in the case of Bank of Baroda and Another Vs. Avinash D.Mandivikar and Others11, and paragraph No. 4 in Satish Choudappa Honnali Vs. The 7 (2005) 7 SCC 690 8 W.A.No.587/2023 (GM CC) 9 (2007) I SCC 80 10 (1994) 5 SCC 344.
11(2005) 7 SCC 690
- 42 -
State of Karnataka and Others12, wherein the Co- ordinate Bench relying on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.P.Changalavaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, reported in 1994 1 SCC 1 has held that if a certificate of social status is secured by playing fraud, the same can be rescinded in an appropriate proceeding by the jurisdictional authorities. Therefore, the Validity Certificate cannot be construed as a China Wall that prevents any action being taken. With this, the learned Special counsel submits that the certificate issued by the DCVC can never be considered as a China Wall to go into the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation as a device to obtain the certificate and submits that the learned Single Judge having considered all these aspects of the matter rightly rejected the writ petition, which does not require any interference.
54. Sri.Adityanarayana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 argued in the same line as that of the Special Counsel, relying on more than a dozen of 12 W.A.No.587/2023
- 43 -
authorities on each aspect of the matter, such as maintainability of writ petition, any person aggrieved, limitation to file appeal, the knowledge of order must be specific for limitation to run, doctrine of merger, maintainability of appeal, vis-à-vis election petition and regarding fraudulent claims for caste certificates; effect of fraud and sought to dismiss the appeal.
55. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 are as under:
i. Executive Engineer, Bihar state housing board V. Ramesh kumar singh,13 ii. India V. Kunisetty Satyanarayana,14 iii. Bar Council of Maharashtra V. M.V. Dabholkar15 iv. A. Subhash Babu V. State of Andhra Pradesh16 v. Sri Vageesh b. V. The Deputy Commissioner, Hon'ble High Court of 17 vi. Karnataka at Bengaluru (M. Nagaprasanna, J) vii. Madan Lal V. State of U.P.,18 viii. Alamelu Ammal V. The District Collector,19 ix. P. Sundarmurthy V. The District Collector,20 x. State of Punjab V. Qaisar Jehan Begum,21 xi. Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji V. Union of India,22 xii. SBI V. S.N. Goyal,23 13 (1996) 1 SCC 327 14 (2006) 12 SCC 28 15 (1975) 2 SCC 702 16 (2011) 7 SCC 616 17 W.P.No.8087/2023 Dt:17.04.2023 18 (1975) 2 SCC 779 19 (1997) (I) CTC 669 20 2015 SCC Online Mad 9271 21 1963 SCC Online SC 54 22 (2019) 20 SCC 92 23 (2008) 8 SCC 92
- 44 -
xiii. Veeresh V. State of Karnataka,24 xiv. Hari Prasad Mulshanker Trivedi V. V.B. Raju,25 xv. Bhagwati Prasad V. Rajeev Gandhi,26 xvi. Durga Singh V. M. Lakshman Yadav,27 xvii. Shiddalingappa Mallappa Abbigeri V. The Deputy Commissioner,28 xviii. K. Venkatachalam V. A. Swamickan,29 xix. Jatan Kumar Golcha V. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd.,30 xx. Madhuri Patil V. Commr., Tribal Development,31 xxi. Raju Ramsing Vasave V. Mahesh Dearao Bhivapurkar,32 xxii. Jayashree V. Director of Collegiate Education,33 xxiii. Sri Satish V. State of Karnataka,34
56. Having heard the learned counsel on the rival contentions, the point that would arise for our consideration is:
Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in answering the points for consideration against the petitioner ignoring that the said points have already been dealt with and settled by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ appeals?24
W.A.NOs.101469-470/2016 c/w W.A.No.101465/2016 Dt:04.04.2017 25 (1974)3 SCC 415 26 (1986) 4 SCC 78 27 2003 SCC Online AP 533 28 W.P.No.105645/2023 Dt:02.02.2024 29 (1999) 4 SCC 526 30 (1970) 3 SCC 573 31 (1994) 6 SCC 241 32 (2008) 9 SCC 54 33 2018 SCC Online Kar 3923 34 W.A.No.587/2023 Dt:14.09.2023
- 45 -
Our answer to the above point for consideration is in Negative for the following:
REASONS
57. Before dwelling on the rival contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties. It is apt to sum up the undisputed facts involved in the matter on the basis of pleadings.
(a) Assembly seat with respect to Aurad-B constituency of Member of Legislative Assembly has been reserved for Scheduled Caste Candidate, since 2008. Earlier it was a General Constituency.
(b) A caste certificate was issued in favour of the appellant on 02.05.2008 by the Tahsildar, Aurad Taluk, stating that the appellant belongs to 'Lambani' caste, which is a Scheduled caste and the petitioner was duly elected as Member of the Legislative Assembly from Aurad Constituency in Bidar District.
- 46 -
(d) On 10.04.2013, the Tahsildar Aurad, issued another caste certificate in favour of appellant for lifetime validity.
(e) On 16.02.2014, one Shankarrao Thippanna Doddi filed complaint with the Minister of Social Welfare, alleging that the candidate-appellant is not a resident of Karnataka and does not belong to Scheduled Caste.
(f) On 05.01.2015, the Minister for Social Welfare referred the matter to the Secretary of Social Welfare Department for holding an enquiry. The Secretary in turn referred the matter to Additional Director General of Police (Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement(ADGP-DCRE, for short).The ADGP-DCRE referred the complaint to the Superintendent of Police (DCRE), Kalaburagi, for enquiry.
(g) The Superintendent of Police sought a report from the concerned Tahsildar in the matter on 22.05.2015. The Tahsildar of the concerned taluk submitted report to the Superintendent of Police (DCRE) to the effect that appellant is born in
- 47 -
Karnataka and permanent resident of Karnataka and he belongs to Lambani caste which is a Scheduled Caste in Karnataka.
(h) The Superintendent of Police submitted his report on 01.01.2016, stating that the appellant has migrated to Karnataka from Maharashtra and does not belong to Scheduled Caste and has contested election in 2008 and 2013 for the reserved constituency, on alleged false certificate. Based on that report ADGP-DCRE referred the matter to District Caste Verification Committee (DCVC, for short) for enquiry by his requisition dated 08.08.2016.
(i) The caste certificate issued in the year 2008, is not challenged before the authority under the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 ('Act of 1990' for short).
(j) The DCVC registered the case in Case No.C&V CR/98/2016-2017, wherein Sri Shankarrao Doddi was shown as complainant against the appellant-
- 48 -
Prabhu Chavan. The Committee after holding a detailed enquiry in terms of provision under Section 4C, summoned documents and after perusing the documents produced by the appellant as well as Sri Shankarrao Doddi, holds that the appellant is born in Karnataka on 06.07.1969 and his name was found in the voter list of the year 1993 with respect to Aurad 'B' Constituency, which was a general constituency at that point of time and was not reserved. So also the name of father as well as mother of the appellant find place in the voter list of the year 1998. The findings of the Committee are reproduced for easy reference.
"The-respondent-Prabhu Chowan is Born in Karnataka on dated:06.07.1969 at village Bonti Ghamusubai Thanda Dist:Bidar Karnataka State. In this regard a Birth Certificate is issued Us 12/17 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act 1969 and rule 8/l3 of the Kamataka Registration of Birth and Death rules, 1999. This Birth Certificate was issued by a competent authority under the statue of birth and death registration act in form No. 5. Secondly there is a residential certificate given by Deputy Tahsildar, Dabka Hobli Aurad (B) Taluka. In this Certificate it is clearly mentioned that, Prabhu Chavan is resident of Ghamsubai Thanda, Bonti village, Aurad(B) taluka. This is a positive document to show the residence of
- 49 -
respondent. There is a document and evidence to show that he has no property found in the Gram Panchayat office of village Togri, Taluka, Udgir, District, Latur. This Certificate pertains to Sri. Bhemla who is the father of the respondent. This fact is corroborated in the Birth Certificate of the respondent in which the father's name is shown as Bhemla Chowan. The Birth Certificate given from the Ghumsabai Thanda is further proved by another document that is the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Togri in which, it is mentioned that, there is no document to show, in the Gram Panchayat office, about the Birth' of respondent Prabhu Chavan this means allegation found in complaint that, he is resident of Togri Maharashtra is false. Similarly, certificate is produced to show that there is no document to show the residence and birth of Bhamla Bhemla Chavan, who is father of respondent Prabhu Chavan, at Gram Panchayat Togari. Similarly, that Gram Panchayat office has issued Certificate to show the non-residence and absence of birth entry is the panchayat records pertaining to respondent.
The Voter list of the Year 1993 of Aurad(B) constituency pertaining to Bonti village at Sl. No. 514 show the name of respondent Prabhu S/o Bhamla. This Voter list is important because in the year 1993 Aurad (B) constituency was a "General Constituency"
and it was not reserved. This entry shows that, in the year 1993 Prabhu Chavan was residing at Bonti village in Kamataka. The other side there iş no voter list produced from the Maharashtra to show that, he was a voter at any time in the Maharashtra state. There is also the voter list of the year 1995 for the village Bonti in which at Sl. No. 120 the name of Prabhat So Bhamla is shown and this is the second name of Prabhu Chavan as found in his Birth Certificate. This is clear because the name of Motabai Bhamla appears near the name of respondent in both the voter list. Motabai bhamla is mother of prabhu Chavan. Even the year 1998 the name of respondent appears for the village Bonti at Sl. No. 120 in which the house number is shown as 104. The name of respondents mother Motabai is also shown at Sl. No. 119 and the house number is 104. The complainant has filed the transfer certificate of Chavan Prabhat Bhamla for S.S.L.C. exams. "(It is from the post
- 50 -
basic middle and higher middle ashram school Shilvani thanda, Taluka, Degalur, District, Nanded)". In this certificate his caste is shown as Hindu (Banjara). It is worth mentioning that, Aurad(B) taluka is adjacent to Maharashtra State and adjacent taluka is Degalur. And if somebody for the purpose of education goes to adjacent state it does not mean that, he is a resident of that state.
Now coming to the certificate issued by the Tahsildar it is clear that, there is a base to give such certificate like his residence in the village Bonti, his birth, his name in the voter list even before the declaration of the constituency as reserved in the year 2008. The most important thing is even in the certificates found from the Maharashtra the caste is show as Hindu (Banjara and in Karnataka also the same caste is shown. There is no question of giving false certificate of caste. The only difference is that, in Maharashtra state it is not SC, but in Karnataka it is SC. Since, the respondent is born in Karnataka his name appears in voter list, residential certificate and caste certificate. The caste certificate issued is, in no way, false."
(k) This order came to be passed by the committee on 20.11.2017. Sri.Shankarrao Doddi challenged the order of DCVC by instituting a writ in W.P.No.58264/2017 (GM-CC). The said petition was dismissed, holding that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 4-D(i) of the Act of 1990 and held that the writ petition is not maintainable and disposed of the same with liberty to prefer an appeal.
- 51 -
(l) Sri.Shankarrao Doddi filed an appeal in No. 01/2018-19 before the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department and Appellate Authority, Bengaluru. Upon issuance of notice, the appellant challenged the same in W.P.No.201341/2018, and was dismissed with observation to raise all the objections before the Appellate Authority.
(m) The appeal was heard extensively, but on 07.05.2018, the appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of appellant- Shankarrao Doddi. The order of Commissioner on the plea of the appellant regarding maintainability of the appeal and the opposition by the appellant therein and the contentions of learned Special Counsel appeared for the authorities to that extent are extracted for easy reference:
"The learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.6 has vehemently opposed the maintainability on the ground that the caste certificate obtained by the respondent no. 6 is for contesting election for the member of Legislative Assembly. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellant is not
- 52 -
maintainable. On this score alone, the appeal has to be dismissed without going into the merits of the case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has specifically urged that after causing notice in this case, his client has preferred Writ Petition No. 201341/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Kalburgi Bench. By an order dated 20.4.2018, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalburgi Bench was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition, reserving liberty to respondent no.6 herein to raise the contention of maintainability as a preliminary issue However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strongly opposed the contention of the respondent no.6 and submits that no such liberty was reserved by the Hon'ble High Court at Kalburgi Bench. This Authority after hearing the parties has arrived at the conclusion that the order passed the writ petition was not placed by either of the parties before this Authority. Therefore, in order to proceed further, this authority insisted the counsel for the appellant to submit the sworn affidavit in support of his contention. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned from the morning hours to 4.30 p.m. The matter was taken up at 4.30 p.m. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has filed an Affidavit and reiterated his contention as narrated above and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Kalburgi has never passed an order to pass order on maintainability. There after both the sides have vehemently advanced their respective grounds of arguments. The learned Special Counsel has submitted that since the respondent no.6 has taken caste certificate claiming that he belongs to Lambani community, under Article 341 of the Constitution of India, he submits as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director for Tribal Welfare Vs. Laveti giri of A.P. reported in (1995) 4 SCC 32, the burden lies on the respondent no.6 to establish that he belongs to "Lambani' community, which came to be included in the scheduled caste list on 27.7.1977. The said matter was seriously contested by all the parties and this authority heard the matter till 7.30 p.m. However, for want of some materials, the matter was adjourned to 27.4.2018. On 27.4.2018 when the matter was taken up for hearing, the appellant has engaged a new counsel, after obtaining no objection from one of his colleague, who was already on record and submitted a
- 53 -
memo seeking withdrawal of this appeal along with, his Vakalatnama. The learned Special Counsel vehemently argued regarding the conduct of the appellant that he has preferred an appeal against a person who is contesting for MLA from Aurad and after elaborate arguments instead of proceeding further, he is intended to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, he has misused the precious time of this Court from 17.4.2018 and he has made this authority to carry on the proceedings upto 7.30 p.m. on 23.4.2018. Therefore, this type of practice of filing the appeal by the appellant and his conduct is not but an act of questionable intent and the same has to be deprecated and as such he has prayed before this authority to impose exemplary costs. However, the appellant's counsel submits that when the appellant himself has made up his mind to withdraw the appeal, this Court has to accept the memo and dismiss the appeal filed by him as withdrawn, without imposing any cost.
Heard the counsel for both the parties including learned Special Counsel. Memo was taken on record and posted for orders. This authority after considering all the aspects and also the time consumed by the appellant this authority is permitted to withdraw the appeal filed by him. There after, regarding the imposing up cost on the appellant I pass the following ORDER The Appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed as withdrawn. As rightly pointed by the learned Special Counsel in this appeal a serious issue regarding the caste status of the respondent no.6 who is contesting for ensuing election. When a serious issue regarding the caste status is raised before this Authority that too, after prolonged arguments the appellant now has come forwarded to withdraw the appeal. By this, he has wasted not only the precious time of this Court, but also the precious time of the learned Special Counsel and the Respondent no.6. The very conduct of the appellant has to be deprecated. Hence, taking in to the account of the time consumed by this authority and also regarding the conduct of the appellant, it would be appropriate for me to impose an exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant is hereby directed to deposit the said amount towards the Central Relief Committee for the
- 54 -
Welfare of Homeless and Poor within 15 days from the date of the order passed by this authority. If the appellant fails to remit said amount, the respondent No.3 has to recover the said amount forthwith. Inspite of this order if the appellant fails to deposit the said amount necessary legal action may be taken against him.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on the 7th day of May, 2018."
(n) On 06.03.2020, one Sri.Ravindraswamy filed an application/revision under Section 4F of the Act of 1990 before the Deputy Commissioner to quash the Caste Certificate dated 04.02.2013 issued in favour of Prabhu Chavan and for a direction to DCRE to file a criminal case against the Tahsildar for issuance of Caste Certificate.
the Deputy Commissioner issued an
endorsement on 31.03.2020/10.04.2020,
rejecting the petition on the ground that the matter has already been concluded vide order dated 20.11.2017 before the Committee and the request in revision cannot be considered.
Against the issuance of endorsement,
Sri.Ravindraswamy preferred a petition in
W.P.No.225917/2020, seeking to quash the
- 55 -
endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner and a mandamus against Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry in terms of the order dated 07.05.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, subsequent to withdrawal of the appeal by Sri. Shankarrao Doddi.
(o) Subsequent to rejection of Revision Petition filed by Sri Ravindraswamy, one Sri Vijay Kumar filed a revision petition in No.C&V CR/98/2016-2017 before the Deputy Commissioner, seeking cancellation of Caste Certificate, issued to the appellant. On 26.05.2020, after filing a revision, Sri. Vijay Kumar preferred a writ petition in WP No.226907/2020 (GM-CC), for a mandamus against the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, to decide the revision before him expeditiously, to which the appellant herein and other authorities were parties and opposed the writ petition. An application, for an amendment to add, a prayer
- 56 -
seeking to quash the order passed by the DCVC dated 20.11.2017, was allowed and the prayer sought was granted. The learned Single Judge, thereafter vide common order dated 01.02.2022, allowed the petition, setting aside the order dated 20.11.2017 by the DCVC and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the revision filed by Sri.Ravindraswamy remanded the matter to DCVC, with a direction to adjudicate the said case afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to all the parties, in a time bound manner.
(p) The order of the learned Single Judge was the subject matter before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200032/2022 c/w W.A.200031/2022 by the appellant herein. In the said writ appeal, Sri Ravindraswamy filed W.A. Crob.No.200001/2022. The challenge in W.A.Crob.No.200001/2022, by Sri Ravindraswamy, only to the extent of remanding the case to the DCVC. All the
- 57 -
matters were connected and disposed of by a common order dated 13.01.2023. The Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeals filed by the appellant herein, setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the W.A.Crob No.200001/2022 preferred by Sri.Ravindraswamy.
(q) The Order passed in writ appeal supra was subject matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil)No.7747/2023. The Hon'ble Apex Court on 01.05.2023 dismissed the appeal holding that no case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is made out.
(r) In 2023 Assembly Election was declared for the State of Karnataka. The respondent No. 9 herein contested in the election, claiming reservation under Scheduled Caste against the appellant herein.
- 58 -
(s) The respondent No.9 raised objections before the returning officer, at the time of scrutiny of nomination, alleging that the appellant is not a person belonging to Scheduled Caste, as he was born in Maharashtra State and migrated to Karnataka and not entitled to contest from the constituency under reserved seat. The objection of respondent No.9 was not considered and nomination was accepted.
(t) The appellant herein declared as successful candidate, in the 2023 Election.
(u) The respondent No.9 herein on 06.11.2023 preferred an appeal before the Authority under Section 4D of Act, 1990, calling in question the order passed by the DCVC in Appeal bearing No.SKNI/MI.JA.KO-3/DAAVE-11/2023-24.
(v) A notice of appeal is issued on the appellant to show his cause, vide notice dated 22.11.2022, which was the subject matter before the learned Single Judge and in this Appeal.
- 59 -
58. With these undisputed facts narrated above, this Court now proceeds to consider the rival submissions by the parties and the order dismissing the writ petition, by the learned single Judge.
59. Before adverting to the submissions and the order of the learned Single Judge, it is very apt to state here that to the query of this Court regarding whether the fraud and misrepresentation, pleaded in the appeal to consider the same even beyond limitation, as contended by learned counsel for respondent No.9, to both the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8 and 9, the learned Special Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8 with all fairness submits that there is no such pleadings about the fraud and misrepresentation, as envisaged under Order VI Rule 4 is forthcoming in the appeal.
60. Though Sri.Adityanarayan, learned counsel for respondent No.9, relied on paragraph Nos.6 and 7, of the appeal memorandum, to contend that the word false certificate stated in the said paragraph, cannot be countenanced as a substitute to particulars regarding
- 60 -
fraud and undue influence, as envisaged under Order VI Rule 4. In the absence of foundational pleadings and particulars, appeal itself is not maintainable. Our view is strengthened by the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court way back in the year 1951 in Bishundeo's case particularly at paragraph No.22, which reads as under:
"22. We turn next to the questions of undue influence and coercion. Now it is to be observed that these have not been separately pleaded. It is true they may overlap in part in some cases but they are separate and separable categories in law and must be separately pleaded. It is also to be observed that no proper particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid.
There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion "
(Emphasis supplied)
61. What is seen from paragraph Nos.6 and 7, except the word false certificate and narration of earlier proceedings regarding the report of the Superintendent of Police forwarded to ADGP CRE Cell, Bengaluru, that
- 61 -
appellant is a native of Maharashtra State has obtained false caste certificate and no pleading at all about fraud and misrepresentation. The contents in the paragraph supra cannot in any stretch of imagination be said that the same comes within the purview of Order VI Rule 4, either to say pleadings with respect to fraud and undue influence or misrepresentation or the particulars of the same. It is the cardinal principle of pleadings that whenever there is a plea of fraud and misrepresentation is made, the same shall be within the purview of Order VI Rule 4, which clearly states that particulars to be given where necessary. The provision reads as follows:
"Order VI Rule 4 - In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading."
62. Nothing of such sort is forthcoming from the appeal memorandum filed by respondent No.9 before the Appellate Authority. First of all, the Co-ordinate Bench of
- 62 -
this Court in the earlier round of litigation, considered elaborately the contentions of fraud and undue influence on the certificate issued by the DCVC, which has been set aside by the learned Single Judge on the ground accepting the said contention and came to a conclusion that in the absence of any appropriate particulars, just on the scurrilous allegations, the Court cannot accept the same mainly because the other party is holding some public post, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bishundeo's supra.
63. In the case on hand, in the absence of any specific pleadings with particulars regarding when the fraud was committed and when the person was undue influenced, in the teeth of earlier finding of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation holding that, the petitioners had not even filed affidavit of Sri.Shankarrao Doddi or placed any material to show that Prabhu Chavan wielded influence on Sri.Shankararao Doddi, Tahsildar, Deputy Commissioner or Member of the DCVC. In these circumstances it is very hard for us to countenance the claim of the respondent No.9 at this
- 63 -
belated stage by more than 6 years as on the date of filing of the appeal, as held by the Co-ordinate Bench in the earlier writ appeal, is hit not only by delay but latches too.
64. In these circumstances the notice issued on a stale claim just to take another chance would clearly amount to abuse of process of law. The Court exercising the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, when any person approaches the Court, complaining that the initiation of the proceedings amounts to gross abuse of process of law on hyper technicalities are required to be considered on the background of the claim. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel, a person who has been declared successful candidate under democratic setup cannot be non-seated on hyper technical grounds taking one after the other over a period of time, only to settle political scores, which have already suffered and a set back in earlier two rounds amounts to untold hardship on the appellant,as he has to run after authorities after authorities and Courts one after the other, in answering the very same settled position of law. A finality
- 64 -
which has been attained to an order by lapse of time cannot be permitted to be reopened on mere asking. The reopening of a settled position not only affects the interest of the party against whom the claim is made, but also affects the public interest at large, which is impermissible under law.
65. The doctrine of delay and latches cannot be brushed aside lightly. The writ Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 is required to weigh all the materials put forth before it, while considering an action brought in challenging a settled position which has attained finality in earlier rounds before the Division Bench, since the pivotal amplification, it is exercising an extraordinary jurisdiction. The delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. This important aspect of the matter has been missed by the learned Single judge, while answering the point on limitation, which has already been answered and attained finality, before the Division Bench in earlier round of litigation in writ appeals.
66. Point Nos.1&2in W.P:Though the learned Senior counsel submits that it is only the aggrieved person in
- 65 -
terms of Section 4D entitled to file an application, learned Senior counsel submits referring to Section 4D that, it is only person who is aggrieved by an order made by the Verification Committee under Section 4C of Act of 1990 can only file an appeal under Section 4D. The earlier appeal filed by Shankarrao Doddi having been withdrawn in the midst when it has reached to its final stage, the appeal now by respondent No.9 calling himself to be aggrieved person, is not maintainable, as he cannot be said to be either a aggrieved party nor could file the present petition. It is not in dispute that a person whose right under the Statue is jeopardized, would very well maintain an appeal and comes within the word aggrieved person and having locus standi to question the order, but for the particular facts and circumstances of the case on hand, in view of earlier findings which has attained finality, the appeal filed by respondent No.9 is not maintainable on limitation, for the reason the earlier appeal filed by Sri.Shankarrao Doddi has been withdrawn. Hence, no fresh appeal under Section 4D could be filed.
- 66 -
67. In contrast Sri. C.Jagdish, learned Special counsel for the State as well as the counsel for respondent No.9 Sri.Adityanarayan, in unison submits that the earlier appeal filed by Shankarrao Doddi having been withdrawn has not put an end to the right of any other aggrieved person. Respondent No.9 very well maintained the appeal, as there is no adjudication on the order by the Appellate Authority with respect to the order passed by the DCVC. In this background as there is no finality attained to the order, as such the appeal by respondent No.9 is very well maintainable.
68. Learned Single Judge having considered the rival submissions was of the opinion that the earlier appeal filed by Shankarrao Doddi, having been withdrawn, has not attained finality, since there is no decision by the Appellate Authority on the order passed by the DCVC. The appeal by respondent No.9, being a contestant to the Aurad-B Constituency Legislative Assembly seat of Karnataka, against the petitioner claiming the benefit under the Schedule Caste category, is maintainable.
- 67 -
69. The Learned Single Judge further was of the opinion that if the petitioner as contended by respondent No.9, were to be denied the benefit of Scheduled Caste certificate, the Aurad-B Constituency being reserved Constituency for Scheduled Caste would result in petitioner being disentitled to contest the Elections therein and as such the same would directly affect the rights of the respondent. The learned Single Judge further was of the opinion that the case can be viewed at from another angle, i.e., to say if the said validity certificate had not been challenged by Sri. Shankarrao Doddi, it could not be said that respondent No.9 did not have any grievance or was not an affected party. Since respondent No.9 being a co- contestant with the petitioner, such contest would not have happened, if the petitioner did not have a caste validity certificate indicating him to belonging to the Schedule Caste category. With these reasons, the learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that respondent No.9 being a contestant to the reserved Constituency against the petitioner could not be said to be a third party or stranger, but to be considered as an aggrieved person
- 68 -
being a contesting party to a reserved constituency against the petitioner on the basis of false reservation certificate.
70. Learned Single Judge, further was of the opinion that the second round of litigation by Sri.Ravindraswamy and Sri.Vijay Kumar, subsequent to withdrawal of appeal by Shankarrao Doddi, were filed under Section 4F of the Act of 1990. The petition by Sri.Ravindraswamy was rejected by Deputy Commissioner and no action taken on the petition by Sri.Vijay Kumar. Both have approached this Court in W.P.No.225917/2020 and W.P.No.226907/2020, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the revision is maintainable, which in appeal reversed, holding that the appeal under Section 4D being the remedy available and the revision under Section 4F was not maintainable. The challenge laid to the order passed in writ appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Civil)No.7747/2023, ended in dismissal, the finding of the Division Bench that only an appeal under Section 4D was maintainable and attained finality. Hence, there is no order on Section 4D appeal filed earlier.
- 69 -
71. Further referring to the decision of M.V.Dabholkar's case, the learned Single Judge has held that the word 'aggrieved person', has to be given more liberal approach. In the background of statute i.e., Act of 1990, which do not deal with property of rights, but deal with professional conduct and morality the word should be given a wide quote and not restricted interpretation. Relying on the said judgment, the learned Single Judge observed that since respondent No.9 has a genuine grievance as the order directly affects his interest would make such a person an aggrieved person. Further relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court A.Subash Babu Vs. State of A.P35, was of the opinion that the concept of an aggrieved person should be given elastic and an elusive concept and cannot be confined within the bounds of rigid, exact and comprehensive definition, and meaning should be given to the words in such a way as to provide a remedy to an aggrieved person, otherwise such person would be remediless. With these reasons, the 35 (2011) 7 SCC 616
- 70 -
learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the respondent No.9 cannot be said as a third party in the true sense of the term and though he was not a party to the earlier proceedings initiated at the instance of Sri.Shankarrao Doddi and Sri.Ravindraswamy and Sri.Vijay Kumar, now can very well maintain the appeal, as a rival contestant for the reserved Assembly seat of Aurad-B Constituency. The withdrawal of earlier appeal by Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, will not come in the way of respondent No.9 maintaining the appeal and while answering these points, the learned Senior Judge has given a finding that the petitioner had on one or the other ground thwarted the actions of Sri. Shankarrao Doddi finally, prevailed upon him to withdraw the appeal filed under Section 4D.
72. With this the learned Single Judge, has opined that the challenge made to the caste certificate was not addressed and answered either in the writ petition or in the appeal under Section 4D. The same cannot come in the way of appeal now preferred by respondent No.9, since the notice is now issued in pursuance of powers
- 71 -
vested in the Appellate Authority, the appeal is maintainable within the powers enjoined with the Appellate Authority under Section 4D and 4E. Since it is exercising power under Section 4E, wherein the Tahsildar and Verification Committee enjoy the powers of the Civil Court, issued notice and held that such notice issued in the appeal cannot be found fault with.
73. The finding of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable and perverse on facts which have attained finality in earlier proceedings, for the following reasons:
74. Though it is not in dispute that in view of settled position of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.V.Dabholkar's and Subash Babu's, supra a comprehensive definition has to be given to the word 'aggrieved person' to challenge an order if the same affects the interest of a party who was not a party to the earlier proceedings. To that extent, we hold that the learned Single Judge is right in stating that the appellant can maintain appeal but not in the teeth of particular facts and circumstances of the case on hand. The reason being the learned Single Judge though has held that the
- 72 -
appellant becomes an aggrieved person by giving wider meaning to the definition, but subjected with a qualification that he would become such person only when he contest the election and not otherwise. This interpretation would go against the proposition of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the learned Single Judge.
75. It is very apt to state here the, capacity in which Sri.Shankarro Doddi filed complaint against the appellant herein so also Sri Ravindraswamy and Sri Vijaykumar. Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, filed the complaint and approached the Authority in the capacity of a social worker, who is trying to expose the alleged illegal manner in which the appellant is said to have secured caste certificate for the purpose of contesting election to the seat of Member of Legislative Assembly of Karnataka from Aurad-B Taluk of Bidar District, which is a reserved Constituency for Scheduled Caste category.
76. According to Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, because of the illegal act committed by the appellant, the said post which would have gone to a genuine member of Scheduled
- 73 -
Caste is illegally taken away by the appellant. Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, subsequent to the order passed by DCVC Committee called the same in WP.No.58264/2017, wherein he has called himself as social worker. The paragraph Nos.1 and 2 of the order are extracted for easy reference.
" The petitioner herein is claiming himself as social worker who is trying to expose the alleged illegal manner in which the 6th respondent is said to have secured caste certificate for the purpose of contesting election to the post of Member of Legislative Assembly of Karnataka from Aurad-(B) taluka of Bidar district, which is a reserved constituency.
2. According to petitioner, the respondent is claiming himself to be a member belonging to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe on the basis of the false caste certificate secured by him. According to petitioner, but for the said illegal act of the 6th respondent, the said post would have gone to a genuine member of scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community which is illegally taken away by the 6th respondent which is challenged by the petitioner herein in approaching this Court seeking redressal of the wrong doing by the 6th respondent."
- 74 -
77. As per the paper publications referred to by Sri.Navadgi, learned Senior counsel, which we have already stated above, only with the headings Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, at the time he has made the complaint has been stated as President of District SC wing of a political party, which is clear in the article under the heading "From mobile to domicile: Prabhu Chavan in fresh controversy" reported and published in The Hindu, English daily newspaper dated 18.12.2014. This clearly shows that Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, approached the Minister as well as the authority and this Court in a representative capacity and since he has unsuccessful before the DCVC, he has preferred a writ petition. He was relegated by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the joint submissions made by the learned Government advocate as well as the counsel for the appellant herein to avail the remedy under Section 4D of Act, 1990.
78. All the three persons in the earlier first, second and third round of litigation had not contested the Election against the appellant. Though Sri.Ravindraswamy, has stated in his writ petition before this Court that he was a
- 75 -
Counselor and an aspirant to the Assembly seat, but not produced any document to that effect. In these circumstances the finding of the learned Single Judge, to be an aggrieved person, one must contest in election is unsustainable. In these circumstances the submission advanced by both the counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 8 and 9 and considered by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law to that extent. In view of peculiar facts of the case on hand, the point on locus standi as well as right of appeal, though cannot be disputed but in the background of the facts pertaining to the case on hand, respondent No.9 cannot be termed as an aggrieved person at this length of time and has locus standi to challenge the appeal. This aspect of the matter lost sight by learned Single Judge while answering the points stated supra.
79. This can be viewed in an another angle. If the findings of the learned Single Judge is accepted then, it will paves way to infinity. Every person who would contest would come before the Court on the same settled issue again and again taking shelter under the wider definition of the word 'aggrieved person' at any length of time. In
- 76 -
these circumstances, the same is opposed to public policy and against the intention of the Legislature, and the object of the Act.
80. Point No.7 in W.P: Whether a person born in a caste or community, which is not notified as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a State of birth, upon migration to another State, wherein that caste or community is notified as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, be entitled to the benefit granted to such Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in the State to which the person has migrated to. So far as this proposition is concerned, in the backdrop of settled position of law laid down by the Hon'be Apex Court, we are of the opinion that the answer and conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge, relying on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court with respect to sub-Article 1 of Article 341 of Constitution of India, a person who is born in a caste or community which is not notified as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in the State of birth upon migration to another State within the caste or community is notified as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not be entitled to the benefit
- 77 -
granted to such Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in the State to which the person has migrated, is well founded on settled position of law.
81. Point No.8 in W.P. Even if an election petition were to be filed, could the Election Tribunal be empowered to decide on the validity or otherwise of the caste certificate under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc) Act, 1990 or would it have to be done by the authorities as constituted under the Act of 1990.
82. As none of the counsel appearing for the parties argued on this point, in these circumstances, we are having no other option than to say that deliberation on this question is not warranted.
83. Before adverting to point Nos.3 and 12, this Court proceeds to consider Point Nos.4 to 6 and 11, together to answer in order to avoid repetition of facts and to save judicial time.
84. So far as point of limitation is concerned, as per the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant,
- 78 -
respondent No.9 ought to have preferred the appeal within 30 days from the date of the order or at least within 30 days from the date of withdrawal of the earlier appeal that happened in 2018. The order is passed in the year 2017, to be precise on 20.11.2017. The appeal now filed by respondent No.9 is nearly after 6 years from the date of the order and nearly after 5 years from the date of withdrawal of the appeal by Sri.Shankarrao doddi, on 06.11.2023. There is an inordinate delay of 6 years and the appeal is hit not only by delay but also by latches.
85. Sri.C.Jagadish, learned Special counsel fairly submits that so far as delay is concerned and the knowledge, it is for the respondent No.9 to establish, however, he could be considered as an aggrieved person only when he had contested the election in the year 2023 against the appellant herein, to call in question, the false caste certificate and the validity certificate issued to the appellant by means of fraud. Thus, he submits that the appeal filed by respondent No.9 is well within time. Further learned Special counsel submits that, he being a Special counsel has to protect the interest of persons
- 79 -
belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category, if there is any fraud perpetuated by a person claiming to belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Category and when a challenge is made to the same, in the said backdrop, the Court ought to be liberal in condoning the delay since the said claim of the opponent on the aforesaid stand has got an impact on the depressed category more particularly the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe both internally and externally. Internally is by person claiming on the false certificate to belong to the said category and corner the benefits and externally against those who do not belonging to the category, but seek to oppress persons belonging to the aforesaid categories.
86. Sri.Adityanarayan, learned Counsel for respondent No.9 joining learned Special counsel submits that the respondent No.9 becomes an aggrieved person only when he has contested to the Election and came to know regarding the said order recently in the year 2023 and the appeal filed is within time. To buttress his
- 80 -
argument he relied on Madan Lal Vs. State of U.P.36, to contend that remedy cannot be lost for no fault of person and a person whose rights are affected by an order must have notice of it and thus it is from the date of notice, the limitation ought to commence. He further relied on Alamelu Ammal Vs. The District Collector37, to contend that there is no communication of a copy of the order since he was not a party to the earlier proceedings. The date of decision cannot be reckoned against the respondent No.9 for the purposes of limitation. He further relies on the judgment of Madras High Court in P.Sundarmurthy VS. The State of Government38, to contend that the date of knowledge may be much after the date of the order. As such, the limitation would start from the date of actual knowledge and not the date of order. Further contends that if the opponent party disputes the date of knowledge, it is for the party to establish that the person had knowledge much prior. As the appeal proceedings are in initial stage of issuance of notice, these 36 (1975) 2 SCC 779 37 (1997) (I) CTC 669 38 2015 SCC Online Mad 9271
- 81 -
aspects required to be dealt with by the Appellate Authority. He further submits that respondent No.9 was not a party to the proceedings initiated by Sri.Shankarrao Doddi and in the second round by Sri.Ravindraswamy and Sri Vijay Kumar. It is only in 2023, per Adithyanarayan, when respondent No.9 contested the Election for the Aurad-B Reserve Constituency against the appellant in 2023, he becomes aggrieved person and the knowledge is attributable only thereafter.
87. The learned Single Judge on the rival submissions was of the opinion that there is no document to show that the respondent earlier to 2023, had contested the Elections against the appellant. Accordingly, held that the knowledge of the order on the part of respondent No.9, in his considered opinion would be relevant inasmuch as even if an order had been passed earlier and even if the same were to have come to the knowledge of respondent No.9, the respondent No.9 could not have contested or challenged the said order, since respondent No.9 would not have qualified to the status of an aggrieved person and since the word aggrieved person
- 82 -
has already been answered while considering point Nos.1 and 2. On this the learned Single Judge has observed that ex-facie it cannot be said that the appeal filed by respondent No.9 is barred by law of limitation, and answered point No.4 in favour of the respondent No.4, holding that in the light of the above background the limitation period under Section 4D of the Act of 1990, would thus run from the date i.e., when the respondent No.9, contested the Election, to be precise in the year 2023, and as such the appeal filed, is in time calling in question the order of the DCVC under Section 4D.
88. Our answer to the point Nos.1 and 2 supra holds good for the point No.4 raised by the Learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge on the point of limitation, in paragraph No.20.14 has held as under:
"20.14. Thus, the knowledge of the order on part of Respondent No.9, in my considered opinion would be irrelevant inasmuch as even if an order had been passed earlier and even if the same were to have come to the knowledge of Respondent No.9, Respondent No.9 could not have contested or challenged the said order, since Respondent No.9 would not have
- 83 -
qualified to the status of an 'aggrieved person'."
(Emphasis Supplied)
89. This finding of the learned Single Judge is perverse and not sustainable in law in the factual background. The reason being at the earlier two rounds of litigation, the persons who have challenged the caste certificate have not contested in Election against the petitioner. One calling himself as a social worker and representative of the members of the caste, being the President of District Scheduled Caste community of a particular National party, and another person particularly Sri.Ravindraswamy, calling himself as an aspirant to the election, but he has not stated that he has contested in the Election. So far as Sri.Vijay Kumar there is nothing to show that he has contested in the Election. In these circumstances admitting the respondent No.9 within the ambit of aggrieved person and holding that he will become an aggrieved person, but for the purpose of limitation, with qualification that he becomes such a person when he contests the Election, is against the earlier round of
- 84 -
litigation which is lost sight of the learned Single Judge. In these circumstances, the finding of the learned Single Judge itself proves that the appeal is hit by law of limitation. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in earlier Writ Appeals on the point of limitation calling in question the order dated 20.11.2017, which is also subject matter of the appeal by Respondent No.9 has held as under:
"33. Power under Article 226 of Constitution cannot be exercised if there is delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. To seek mandamus for implementation of the order dated 07.05.2018 the writ petition shall be promptly filed and the persons seeking such mandamus should have some locus-standi. In Ayub Khan Pataan´s case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle with the proceedings of caste certificate unless he has a locus standi/legal right. Moreover caste certificate issued in favour of Ravindra Swamy itself is under cloud in view of the judgment passed against him in W.A.No.200065/2022.
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 8 of the judgment in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi´s case referred to supra relying on its earlier judgment in Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) LRS14 held that an action, whether on an application of the parties or suo-moto must be taken within the period prescribed by law, if no such period is prescribed under any law, that must be taken within a reasonable time. It was further held that, if an application is made after unreasonably long time, such application is liable to be dismissed.
35. In this case, the first caste certificate was issued in the year 2008, the one under challenge was issued in 2013, DCVC's order was passed on 20.11.2017 and the order of the Commissioner was dated 07.05.2018. Whereas the writ petitions were filed in 2020 without justifying such delay. The caste certificate issued in 2008 was not questioned at all. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order ignoring the aforesaid facts acted contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi´s case referred to supra."
- 85 -
90. The finding of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court holds good on limitation point in the present case also. The learned Single Judge lost sight of this, as such the finding on point No.4 on limitation is answered against the Respondent No.9 holding that the appeal preferred given the factual background is hit by delay and latches.
91. So far as point No.5 on the res-judicata is concerned. The learned Senior counsel Sri.Navadagi, for the petitioner-appellant vehemently submits that the earlier appeal filed by Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, under Section 4D having been withdrawn and the said withdrawal would constitute a res judicata and the present appeal by respondent No.9 is an abuse of legal process. He further submits that there are repeated enquiries faced by the appellant, which has caused untold hardship and amounts to abuse of process of law. Since the challenge started from 2014 ended in enquiry by the DCVC by means of an order holding that the certificate issued to petitioner is genuine and he belongs to Scheduled Caste. The appeal filed challenging the order of DCVC, thereafter was
- 86 -
withdrawn, in these circumstances, the order by DCVC attained finality.
92. He further submits that in the second round of litigation, Sri. Ravindraswamy and Sri.Vijay Kumar, called in question the Scheduled Caste certificate issued in the year 2013, for the lifetime, by way of revision under Section 4F. The Revision Petition by Sri.Ravindraswamy was rejected. In the second revision by Sri.Vijay Kumar, no action taken by the authority. Both have approached this Court in writ petition and the learned Single Judge allowed the petition, holding that revision is maintainable and remanded the matter, setting aside the order passed by the DCVC, which when called in question in earlier round of writ appeal, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court answered all the points including limitation and held that repeated enquiries amounts to abuse of process of law. The order of the Co-ordinate Bench taken before the Hon'ble Apex Court and unsuccessful. The order of the Co- ordinate Bench in the earlier round of writ appeal thus has attained finality.
- 87 -
93. He further submits that the appellant who is a victim of all these actions cannot be forced again to answer the issue about caste certificate, since he has already answered in multiple occasions earlier. The learned Senior counsel brought to our attention to the paper publications stated supra. In these circumstances, there is a notice regarding the caste of appellant and challenge to the same to the entire District at least. The respondent No.9 being an active politician in the field for considerable years much earlier to the appellant herein, now cannot plead the ignorance of notice of the challenge laid to the caste certificate of the appellant at the earlier point of time i.e., 2014 and thereafter.
94. The post is with respect to an Assembly seat. It is in this background learned Senior counsel submits that Section 4D contemplates that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Verification Committee under Section 4C may within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, appeal before the Appellate Authority. The reason being per learned Senior counsel, as per Section 4C, a Committee was constituted by the State Government to
- 88 -
test the veracity of certificate issued either under Section 4A and 4B. As per sub Section (2) of Section 4C, any person who has obtained an income or a caste certificate under Section 4A and 4B, or the Appointing Authority or any Authority making admission to a course of study in the University, or any educational institution may make an application to the Committee in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed for issuance of a validity certificate. Further stated that, only those persons who have applied under sub-section (2) of Section 4C could be termed as aggrieved person and not others. In terms of the language used in Section 4C, the appeal under 4D can be filed by the aggrieved person with respect to the language used within 30 days from the date of receipt of order of appeal would mean that it is in respect to an individual person to a individual post in Government or a seat seeking admission to an university or educational institution, if not a party to an order and affected by that order, may approach the Court from the date of receipt of the order.
- 89 -
95. In the case on hand, the Assembly seat is neither a post in any department of the Government or an admission to any educational institution. It is in respect to an Assembly seat, wherein a person represents entire people of the Constituency being the representative of the people, within the meaning of the Representation of People's Act, 1950. As the Constituency is a Reserved Constituency for a particular category, with respect to representation of people belonging to the said constituency, the entire constituency is aware of the status of the person belonging to a particular caste or category and this appellant is elected as Member of Legislative Assembly since 2008.
96. As the candidature of appellant called in question since 2014, the persons of the Constituency and the respondent No.9, are well aware of these proceedings and respondent No.9 now cannot take shelter that, he becomes an aggrieved person, only when he has contested the Election. He further submits that the finding of the learned Single Judge on the second part to become aggrieved person, such person must contest in election
- 90 -
discords with the opinion to first part with respect to point Nos.1, 2 and 4 for consideration, wherein the learned Single Judge, relying on the judgment of M.V.Dabholkar's case has held that the word aggrieved person be given comprehensive definition to include whose interests are affected.
97. This rider is fatal to the opinion as well as conclusion by the learned Single Judge, since once a broader definition is given including a person belonging to the said caste, restricting it with a rider that he must contest the election to fit within the aggrieved person would not fit in the ratio laid down in the Madhuri Patil's case supra in the factual background of the case in hand.
98. In these circumstances, since the question of delay has already been answered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier round of writ appeal and attained finality, the same applies to the case on hand and same also amounts to merger of the earlier order and as such, the appeal by respondent No.9 at this length of time is hit both by the doctrine of res judicata, on limitation and the doctrine of merger.
- 91 -
99. Learned Senior counsel to buttress his argument relied on the judgment of Marri Chandrasekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S Medical College39, to contend that there is a duty cast upon the Court to ensure that there is no abuse of process of the Court. An issue of law can be overruled later on, but a question of fact cannot be re-opened once it has been finally sealed in a proceeding intercept between the parties and in this the doctrine of finality would have to be applied in a strict legal sense and re-opening of concluded judgments of the Court would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and have a far reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice.
100. In contrast Sri.C.Jagadish, learned Special Counsel as well as Sri.Adityanarayan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 submits in unison that the order passed by the DCVC which was earlier challenged in writ proceedings and thereafter in appeal by Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, has not been finally tested in the 39 (1990) 3 SCC 130
- 92 -
appeal under Section 4D. In these circumstances, till the said order is tested in the appeal, the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable. He further submits that so far as the proceedings filed by Sri.Ravindraswamy and Sri.Vijay Kumar are concerned, those are the revision petition filed under Section 4F, which were allowed by the learned Single Judge but reversed by the Co-ordinate Bench in writ appeal holding that appeal is maintainable. In these circumstances since there is no findings on the claim of Sri.Ravindraswamy and Sri.Vijay Kumar, the same cannot be considered as a finding finally adjudicated the rights of the parties. Therefore, the principles of res judicata does not apply to the case on hand.
101. The learned Single Judge, after going through the rival submissions was of the opinion that though there are several proceedings have been taken place between several parties and the petitioner herein, but since there is no final finding given on the order passed by DCVC in the appeal, the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable. The learned Single Judge further observed that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in earlier writ appeal, has held that
- 93 -
revision petition is not maintainable challenging validity certificate and it is only an appeal which is maintainable this order having taken before the Hon'ble Apex Court in appeal unsuccessfully, attained finality. The learned Single Judge has further observed that there is no finding either given by the Revision Authority, by learned Single Judge of this Court or by Division Bench of this Court or by the Hon'ble Apex Court as regards validity or otherwise of the Caste Certificate. In these circumstances, there is no decision rendered finally adjudicating on the caste certificate on the order passed by the DCVC.
102. The learned Single Judge referring to Section 11, has held that, particularly at paragraph No.21.21, that:
'So far as the phrase litigating under the same title, the aspect of certificate does not relate to a title, it is only the petitioner who claims under the same validity certificate to that extent. It could probably be said that the issue being the same and claiming under the same validity certificate. Thus, the aspect of res judicata could be considered. But however, all these aspects are qualified by the phrase "and has been heard and finally decided by such
- 94 -
Court". Thus, the issue should have been heard and finally decided by a Court.' (Emphasis Supplied)
103. With this, the learned Single Judge has held that the validity or invalidity of the certificate has neither been heard nor decided by the Appellate Authority. All these litigations have been found/fought on technicalities and on the fringes none of the litigants touching upon the merits of the validity or invalidity of certificate. In these circumstances, invoking principle of res judicata cannot be permitted.
104. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion, considering the submissions of learned Special counsel, that the Act of 1990 and Rules of 1992 and the Reservation contemplated under Article 15 and 16 are required to be protected in true sense of the word inasmuch as the writ Court is vested with a duty to ensure that the persons who are entitled to the benefit of such provisions receive such benefits, without any interference from anyone, whether private or Governmental Authority. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was of
- 95 -
the categorical opinion that the principles of res judicata would not be applicable to the present case and held the point No.5 against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No.9.
105. So far as point No.6 - functus officio, the learned Single Judge on the rival submissions of both the parties has held that the lis between the parties not having been considered and as the appeal has not been decided, as appellant has only been permitted to withdraw the appeal in the earlier point of time. The same by itself cannot make the Appellate Authority as functus officio, from performing its duties. To become a functus officio, the Appellate Authority has to perform its duties in terms of the applicable law. Once the duty is discharged in terms of law then only it becomes functus officio. Since there is no final order passed, on the appeal, the Appellate Authority cannot be termed to be functus officio.
106. So far as question Nos.3, 11 and 12 are concerned, the learned single Judge was of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable, since it is only an issuance of notice invoking the appeal provision under
- 96 -
Section 4D and the appellant could raise all his contentions before the Appellate Authority, but with certain findings, the contentions were rejected, which we will answer a little later.
107. It is germane to state here that the first action was by Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, calling in question the certificate issued in the year 2013, by way of a complaint before the Minister of Social Welfare which as aforesaid, ultimately referred to DCVC. It is very apt to extract the provisions of Section 4E, for the easy reference, which even the learned Single Judge has referred while answering one of the point for consideration, that the appellate Authority exercised its power under Section 4F as that of Tahsildar and Verification Committee and issued notice of appeal.
Section 4E of the Act of 1990 reads as under:
"4E Tahasildar and the Verification Committee to exercise the powers of the Civil Court.- Tahasildar and the Verification Committee, while holding enquiry under this Act, shall have all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) and in particular in respect of following matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on Oath;
(b) discovery and production of any document;
- 97 -
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; and
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed;"
108. It is very apt to state here the capacity in which Sri. Shankarrao Doddi filed complaint against the petitioner herein. Instead, Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, filed the complaint and approached the Authority in the capacity of a social worker, contending to expose the alleged illegal manner in which the petitioner is said to have secured caste certificate for the purpose of contesting election to the post of Member of Legislative Assembly of Karnataka from Aurad-B Taluk of Bidar District, which is a reserved constituency for Scheduled Caste category.
109. According to Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, because of illegal act committed by the petitioner, the said post which would have gone to a genuine member of Scheduled Caste is illegally taken away by the petitioner. Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, subsequent to the order passed by DCVC Committee called the same in WP.No.58264/2017, wherein he has called himself as social worker. The facts
- 98 -
to that effect in the order of writ petition, we have already extracted. As per the paper publications referred to by Sri.Navadgi, the learned Senior counsel which have already stated above Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, at the time he has made the complaint has been stated as President of District SC wing of a political party, which is clear in the paper article under the heading "From mobile to domicile: Prabhu Chavan in fresh controversy"
reported and published in The Hindu, English daily newspaper dated 18.12.2014. This clearly shows that Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, approached the Minister as well as the authority and this Court in a representative capacity and since he has unsuccessful before the DCVC, called the order in writ petition. He was relegated by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the joint submissions made by the learned Government advocate as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner herein to avail the remedy under Section 4D of Act, 1990. Accordingly, he preferred the appeal under Section 4D.
110. The matter was fiercely contested, however, Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, withdrawn the appeal, on a memo
- 99 -
which was permitted with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the said Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, challenged the caste certificate before the DCVC, in a representative capacity, resulted in failure, with the finding of the original authority i.e., DCVC exercising power under Section 4E as that of a Civil Court. The DCVC has given a categorical finding that the caste certificate issued is a genuine and the appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste category and held that the caste certificate is a valid and issued validity certificate. The order passed by the DCVC, being the original authority on caste validity certificate on withdrawal of appeal, calling in question the same, has attained finality and this withdrawal, now comes in the way of the appeal preferred by respondent No.9, who is claiming as a person under the same category is squarely covered under Explanation 6 to Section 11 of CPC, regarding res judicata. Section 11 along with all explanations reads as under:
"11.Res judicata.--No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantiallyin issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or betweenparties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to trysuch subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
- 100 -
Explanation I.--The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
Explanation II.--For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
Explanation III.--The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
Explanation IV.--Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
Explanation V.--Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
Explanation VI.--Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
[Explanation VII.--The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
Explanation VIII. --An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.]"
111. The learned single Judge, lost sight to appreciate that the original proceedings were held before the DCVC, wherein Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, was shown as a
- 101 -
complainant and an inquiry was held exercising power under Section 4E as that of a Civil Court, permitting the parties to lead evidence as well as produce documents, wherein the documents have been produced. The DCVC being original authority on caste validity certificate upon considering the documents produced and exercising the authority as that of Civil Court recorded a categorical finding holding that the documents produced by the petitioner are genuine and the certificate issued by the concerned Tahsildar of Aurad-B is valid, holding that the petitioner belongs to Lambani, which is a Scheduled Caste in Karnataka. This amounts to a finding which taken in appeal and on withdrawing had attained finality and this withdrawal would definitely comes in the way of respondent No.9.
112. With the cost of repetition, since Sri.Shankarrao Doddi, approached the authority in the capacity of a social worker and being the District President of Scheduled Caste community complaining that the certificate secured by the petitioner affects the interest of his community members amounts to a representative seat or representative lis and
- 102 -
once the lis has been answered by the original authority under Section 4C and challenged in appeal and subsequently withdrawn by said Sri.Shankar Rao Doddi, the another person of the same community has lost his chance to maintain the appeal, as the same is hit by the Explanation VI to Section 11 of CPC, as the respondent No.9 become a party claiming under Sri.Shankarrao Doddi.
113. In view of withdrawal of the earlier appeal the finding of the DCVC that is the original order, under Section 4C becomes final and binding. This is on the broad principle of law that a finality of a decision after appeal having been withdrawn prevents re-litigation on the same issue by others who share the same interest. The judgment relied on by the learned Special counsel in the case of Subash Babu supra, is factually differ and not applicable, as in the said case fraud was alleged and in the case on hand the same is lacking due lack of pleadings and particulars to that effect within Order VI Rule 4 of C.P.C and the same is considered earlier, as there is no particulars of fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation.
- 103 -
114. The learned Single Judge at paragraph No.21.21 which we have already extracted has held although has opined in so far as the phrase litigating under the same title, that is validity certificate to that extent the aspect of res judicata could be applied but further observed that the same is not qualified with the phrase 'and has been heard and finally decided by such Court', and with this the learned Single judge has held that the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable. What is lost sight by learned Single Judge, is in the original proceedings, an inquiry was held by the Committee, exercising power as that of a Civil Court, giving a finding on the caste certificate as valid. The earlier appeal filed by Sri.Shankarrao Doddi in the representative capacity since having been withdrawn, the original order has attained finality. What is heard and finally decided within the meaning of Section 11 is the original proceedings on findings of facts. Once the appeal having been filed and withdrawn and since it was filed in the representative capacity as stated supra, the doctrine of res judicata is very well applicable under Section 11 with Explanation 6.
- 104 -
Accordingly, we answer the same against the Respondent No.9. Our answer on this point also answers on the point regarding the Appellate Authority becoming functus officio, as once the appeal filed in representative capacity is withdrawn, the order attained finality cannot be permitted to be reopened on same relief.
115. So far as doctrine of merger is concerned, the learned Single Judge while answering point No.11, has held particularly at paragraph Nos.27.3, 27.4 and 27.5 that irrespective of doctrine of merger being applicable to the proceedings initiated by Sri.Ravindraswamy and Sri.Vijay Kumar, the orders passed therein would not have a bearing on the appeal filed under Section 4D, which would have to be dealt with independently. This reasoning of the learned Single Judge is per se not sustainable in law, in view of the finding by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on delay, fraud and other contentions taken with respect to the caste certificate. In these circumstances, the reasoning of learned Single Judge on facts are unsustainable.
- 105 -
116. The learned Single Judge answered all the points against the appellant herein, with a finding at para No.16.25, stating that the petitioner-appellant has filed various proceedings to thwart the legal remedies of Sri.Shankarrao Doddi and finally prevailed upon Sri.Shankarrao Doddi to withdraw the appeal filed under Section 4D. In the absence of any document or material and pleading to that effect which has already been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ appeal, while answering the same finding by the learned Single Judge, stating particularly at paragraph No.39 that the learned Single Judge acted contrary to the judgment in Bishundeo's supra, that given the facts and circumstances of the case in holding that, Prabhu Chavan obtained caste certificate and validity certificate by wielding undue influence on the concerned Officers/officials. The Co-ordinate Bench in the earlier W.A.No.200032/2022 and connected matters, at point No.(v) to (viii) to paragraph No.16, while answering on the said issue has culminated the reason stated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition as follows:
- 106 -
"(v) There is no due and proper enquiry by the DCVC in passing the order dated 20.11.2017. The withdrawal of the appeal by Shankarrao requires detailed evaluation regarding fairness of the parties.
(vi) If the parties to the litigation raise plea of fraud, unfairness, unjustness and unreasonableness in the orders passed by the quasi judicial authorities, the High Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India shall step in to set right the injustice caused to the other side;
(vii) While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court shall interfere in cases where Statutory Authority blindly acts on the direction or advise given by the Government;
(viii) Even assuming that Ravindra Swamy is nto a 'person aggrieved' in terms of the act and his bonafides are doubtful, since the Court has doubted the bonafides of Prabhu Chavan, to set right the injustice caused, the Court can interfere in the matters."
117. The Co-ordinate Bench dealt with these reasons of the learned Single Judge at paragraph Nos.36 to 38 and recorded the conclusion at paragraph No.39. The said paragraphs are extracted and read as under:
"36. The entire order of the learned Single Judge reels around the presumption and inference that the DCVC has passed the order dated 20.11.2017 and withdrawal of appeal by Shankerrao was under the political influence of Prabhu Chavan as he was the District in-charge Minister, therefore that amounts to fraud. Prabhu Chavan contends that neither on 04.02.2013, 20.11.2017, 07.05.2018 nor during that period he was a Minister, much less the District in-charge Minister. He claims that the learned Single Judge was prejudiced only based on such bald and scurrilous allegations without any material to substantiate the same. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge's observation that Counsel for Prabhu Chavan during the course of arguments admitted that he was the Minister during that period is incorrect.
- 107 -
37. As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel representing the Advocate on record for Prabhu Chavan, the fraud and undue influence are serious matters and the particulars of the same need to be pleaded and established. Just on the scurrilous allegations, the Courts cannot accept the same, merely because the other party is holding some Public Post. In the writ petitions it was not pleaded that during the above said period Prabhu Chavan was the Minister/District incharge Minister nor the same was admitted/pleaded in the statement of objections of Prabhu Chavan. The petitioners had not even filed affidavit of Shankerrao or placed any material to show that Prabhu Chavan wielded influence on Shankerrao, Tahsildar, Deputy Commissioner or Members of DCVC. Such imputations should not have been accepted without appropriate pleadings or material to substantiate the same. Order VI Rule 4 of CPC mandates that the particulars of fraud and undue influence shall be pleaded. It was contended that Order VI Rule 4 of CPC is not applicable to the writ proceedings. In submitting so, learned Counsel for Ravindra Swamy was oblivious of Rule 2(2) and 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 which say that the petitioner shall plead all relevant facts which have given occasion to the petition and wherever not provided in the Rules, CPC shall apply.
38. The Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court as long back in 1951 in para 22 of the judgment in Bishundeo´s case referred to supra in this regard has held as follows:
"22. We turn next to the questions of undue influence and coercion. Now it is to be observed that these have not been separately pleaded. It is true they may overlap in part in some cases but they are separate and separable categories in law and must be separately pleaded. It is also to be observed that no proper particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. "
(Emphasis Supplied)
- 108 -
39. The learned Single Judge acted contrary to the aforesaid judgment in Bishundeo´s case and facts and circumstances of the case in holding that Prabhu Chavanobtained caste certificate and validity certificate by wielding undue influence on the concerned Officers/officials."
118. In the case on hand, the finding of the learned Single Judge, that petitioner-appellant has filed various proceedings to thwart the legal remedies of Sri.Shankarrao Doddi to withdraw the appeal filed under Section 4D, in the absence of pleadings and documents and material to that effect is uncalled for, as the same cause hardship on the petitioner.
119. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, at paragraph No.44 has considered the scope of interference in DCVC order held as under:
"44. According to Prabhu Chavan, the caste/validity certificate issued in his favour is being challenged incessantly by one or the other just to harass him due to political rivalry. The above narrated facts and circumstances go to show that though the caste certificate was originally issued in 2008, that was not challenged. Prabhu Chavan admittedly was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly of Aurad B Taluk since 2008 continuously. His trouble started when he was elected for the second term also during 2013-2014. There onwards one after another as and when they desired initiated proceedings against him in the garb of validity of caste certificate/DCVC order. That probabilizes his contention that his opponents abusing the process of the Court are initiating such proceedings. The scheme of Rule 7 (4) and (5) shows that enquiry by the DCVC and the appeal against the order of DCVC shall be concluded in a time bound manner. The appeal
- 109 -
shall be disposed of within 45 days from the date of filing of the appeal. Those provisions also indicate that DCVC order cannot be meddled at the sweet will of disgruntled party after lapse of several years."
120. The appeal now filed by the Respondent No.9 after this length of time, is nothing but wrecking political vengeance. Rule of law demands democratic set of elections. As could be seen from the records since 2008 the petitioner has been successfully declared as elected candidate from Aurad-B Assembly seat, continuing till date. The political parties who have lost election from the said seat now cannot be permitted to de-seat the elected member, by making one or the other members in calling the order, which has attained finality in 2017 and 2018, after this considerable period of time, is even oppose to the scheme of Act of 1990 and Rules of 1992, and amounts to gross abuse of process of law. The Courts exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227, are bound under law to safe guard the rights of a party when gross abuse of process are visibly brought out on facts which are already considered and dealt with and attained finality. The learned Single Judge has failed to
- 110 -
consider this aspect of the matter, even though elaborately considered the matter.
121. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion, in the teeth of settled finality of the lis in the earlier round of litigation permitting the 4th round of litigation with appeal filed by the respondent No.9 and notice issued thereon, amounts to abuse of process of law and to put a quietus, we hold that the notice issued by the Appellate Authority, is not sustainable in law and a sheer abuse of process of law and cannot be permitted to proceed further.
122. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal succeeds and accordingly, allowed, setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 17.03.2025, in W.P.No.203394/2023.
(ii) Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, quashing the notice of enquiry dated 22.11.2023 issued by respondent No.2 in
- 111 -
the file No.SKNI/MI.JA.KO-3/DAAVE-
11/2023-24, at Annexure-A.
(iii) In the facts and circumstances cost made easy.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR/ ct-vn