Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vageesh B M vs The Deputy Commissioner on 17 April, 2023
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.8087 OF 2023 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SRI VAGEESH B. M,
S/O SRI NANJAIAH B. M,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O HARALAHALLI,
TQ: HARIHAR,
DIST: DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GANGADHAR S. GURUMATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI GURUDEV I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SHASHIKUMAR B. N,
S/O NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO. 170, HADRIPURA,
KADANUR,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
2
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,
SRI C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI R. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. JATI.C/CR 02/23-24 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE R-1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND F ON THE FILE
OF THE R-1 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 13.04.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question notice dated 03-04-2023 by which the 1st respondent/Deputy Commissioner directs the petitioner to appear before him for an inquiry regarding the caste certificate that is issued to the petitioner on 06-07-2020 depicting him to be belonging to Scheduled Caste/Beda Jangama. It is calling in question the notice the subject petition is filed.
3
2. Heard Sri Gangadhar S.Gurumath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned senior counsel along with Sri C.Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri R.Nagabhushan, learned counsel appearing for caveator-respondent No.2.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details facts, in brief, are as follows:-
The petitioner claims to be belonging to Beda Jangama caste which is a notified Scheduled Caste. It is the further claim of the petitioner that he has been doing social service and has gained popularity through social service among the public at large. Lot of activities done by the petitioner for the benefit of the public is what is pleaded as a preamble to the petition. The petitioner applies for a caste certificate to the jurisdictional Tahsildar seeking issuance of a caste certificate depicting him to be belonging to Beda Jangama.
It is the averment in the petition that the Tahsildar after conduct of inquiry, inspection and satisfying himself with regard to genuineness of the claim of the petitioner, issued a caste certificate to the petitioner on 06-07-2020. For two years after issuance of caste certificate, there was no problem. The 2nd respondent, a 4 resident of Hadripura Kadanur village, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural District registers a complaint against the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner contending that the caste certificate issued to the petitioner is bogus, as he does not belong to Beda Jangama caste. Based upon the said complaint the impugned notice emerges directing the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner and produce all the documents to demonstrate/validate that he belongs to Beda Jangama caste. It is this notice that drives the petitioner to this court in the subject petition.
4. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner would, for the present, urge a solitary contention that the 2nd respondent/complainant has no locus to register a complaint or call in question the caste status of the petitioner. He is neither a rival candidate in any employment or for any benefit or a rival candidate in the elections. That being the case, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the very notice issued, pursuant to the complaint, is without jurisdiction.
5
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would seek to contend that what is issued is a notice to the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to demonstrate before the Deputy Commissioner with regard to genuineness of the caste certificate that is issued by the Tahsildar. Challenge to the show cause notice is available only if it is without jurisdiction. In the case at hand, it is not the case of the petitioner, that the Authority who has issued notice does not have jurisdiction to issue such a notice. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the complainant does have locus as he belongs to Scheduled Caste and being a Scheduled Caste, he is entitled to call in question or register a complaint against a person who is claiming to be a Scheduled Caste but actually does not belong to Scheduled Caste who can take benefit of the caste status in any part of the State. She would seek to place reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered at Kalaburgi Bench in STATE OF KARANTAKA AND OTHERS v. RAVINDRA SWAMY AND OTHERS1, wherein the Division Bench considering the entire spectrum of law has held that the Deputy Commissioner does have jurisdiction under Section 1 W.A.No.200065of 2022 decided on 13-01-2023 6 4F of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 ('the Act' for short) and would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. In reply to the said submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to place reliance upon the judgment rendered by this court in MS. M.N. KALAVATHI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA2 and judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA3.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsels, learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The issue lies in a narrow compass, as the solitary submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant does not have locus to register the complaint. The petitioner for the first time, when he was 45 years old secures a 2 W.P.1898 of 2021 decided on 2-01-2023 3 (2013) 4 SCC 465 7 caste certificate depicting him to be belonging to Beda Jangama caste. An application is made before the jurisdictional Tahsildar by the petitioner who draws up proceedings on 06-07-2020. The Tahsildar claims to have verified the documents submitted by the petitioner. The reference made in the proceedings does not refer to any document produced by the petitioner, but mentions several Government orders. The Tahsildar also indicates that he himself conducted inspection, analyses the report and the order is passed. It is opined that the caste certificate is to be given to the petitioner as belonging to Beda Jangama Caste. The order reads as follows:
"DzÉñÀ ªÁVñï. B.M. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ¥ÀĵÀà B.M. AiÀiÁ£Éà S.H.¸ÀĪÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ CªÀÄÆ®å B.M. ºÁUÀÆ DzÀ±Àð B.M. EªÀgÄÀ UÀ¼À ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ G¯ÉèÃR (1 jAzÀ 4)gÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ºÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£ÀªÀÉvÛÀ ¸ÀĦæÃAPÉÆÃmïð wæð£À DzÉñÀUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÉ®èjUÀÆ ¨ÉÃqÀdAUÀªÀÄ eÁw ¥ÀæªiÀ Át ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ.
¢£ÁAPÀ:06.07.2020 ¸ÀܼÀ:¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ."
After the said proceedings, on the same day, the caste certificate is issued in favour of the petitioner. The sequence to the grant is this 8 way, an application is made by the petitioner but the date of the application does not find a place in the proceedings. Inspection and verification of all documents is done on 06-07-2020 and caste certificate is also issued on 06-07-2020. Therefore, not a day earlier or not a date later to the inspection of documents, verification would take place and the Tahsildar on satisfaction that the petitioner does belong to Beda Jangama issues a caste certificate. Based on the said caste certificate, it appears, that the petitioner is now intending to contest the ensuing elections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.
9. A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner on 24-03-2022 by a person called Shekar Naik who describes himself to be a District Secretary of the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha, Davangere. The complaint is registered before the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Davangere. The registration of proceedings by the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell is called in question before this Court in Criminal Petition No.3070 of 2022 and this Court by its order dated 11-04-2022 has granted an interim order of stay. Thus, the proceedings before the Civil Rights 9 Enforcement Cell are stalled thereon. With the onset of elections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, one Shashidhar H.N, who claims to be a resident of Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural District files a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore under the Act challenging the caste certificate issued to the petitioner on the ground that he belongs to Hindu Veerashiva Lingayat Community, which is not a Scheduled Caste. Details of the caste status of the petitioner are narrated in the revision petition. Pursuant to the revision petition so filed, the Deputy Commissioner issues a notice to the petitioner directing his appearance before him. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner is before this Court.
10. The only issue is, whether the complainant has locus to challenge the caste certificate of the petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of MS. M.N. KALAVATHI (supra) rendered by this Court. The judgment was plainly following a Division Bench judgment in 10 the case of R.S. MAHADEV v. B.R. GOPAMMA AND OTHERS4. The said Division Bench of this Court was following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN (supra) on the issue of locus. The Apex Court in the case of AYAAUBKHAN NOOR KHAN PATHAN has elucidated the issue on locus qua the caste certificate. The Apex Court holds that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority that he falls within the category of aggrieved person. Only a person who has suffered or suffers an injury can challenge the action is what is held by the Apex Court. Therefore, it becomes germane to notice the facts. Paragraph 6 of the judgment depicts what was the issue before the Apex Court. The 5th respondent therein was the complainant. The complainant did not belong to any reserved category. As a matter of fact, the complainant belonged to general category. Therefore, it was contended that he has no right or locus to challenge the certificate issued to the appellant therein before the Apex Court. It is on this premise, the Apex Court holds that the complainant therein had no locus to call in question a caste certificate issued to some other 4 W.A.No.1242 of 2019 dated 03-06-2021 11 caste, unless he belongs to the said reserved category. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment reads as follows:
"6. Shri A.V. Savant, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant has submitted that Respondent 5 does not belong to any reserved category, in fact, he belongs to the general category and hence, he has no right or locus standi to challenge the appellant's certificate. Thus, the High Court committed an error by directing the Scrutiny Committee to entertain the complaint filed by Respondent 5. It has further been submitted that, despite the directions given by this Court, the Scrutiny Committee failed to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice, as the appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and no order was passed with respect to his application for recalling such witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination, which has no doubt, resulted in the grave miscarriage of justice. The affidavit filed by the Scrutiny Committee did not clarify, or make any specific statement with respect to whether or not the appellant was permitted to cross-examine witnesses. It further did not clarify whether the application dated 28-2- 2012 filed by the appellant to recall witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination, has been disposed of. Moreover, the procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee is in contravention of the statutory requirements, as have been specified under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (VimuktaJatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001) (hereinafter referred to as "the 2001 Act") and the 2003 Rules which are framed under the 2001 Act and therefore, all proceedings hereby stand vitiated. The appellant placed reliance upon several documents which are all very old and, therefore, their authenticity should not have been doubted. The earlier report submitted by the Vigilance Cell dated 29-12-1998 clearly 12 stated that the traits and characteristics of the appellant's family matched with those of Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes). The action of Respondent 5 is therefore completely mala fide and is intended, solely to harass the appellant, and the High Court committed grave error in not deciding the issue related to the locus standi of Respondent 5 in relation to him filing a complaint in the first place, as the said issue was specifically raised by the appellant. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."
The Apex Court further considers locus of the complainant therein. Paragraph 18 thereof reads as follows:
"Locus standi of Respondent 5
18. As Respondent 5 does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category, the garb adopted by him, of serving the cause of Scheduled Tribe candidates who might have been deprived of their legitimate right to be considered for the post, must be considered by this Court in order to determine whether Respondent 5, is in fact, in a legitimate position to lay any claim before any forum, whatsoever."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court has proceeded on the foundation that the 5th respondent/complainant does not belong to Scheduled Caste category; the garb adopted by him of serving the cause of Scheduled Tribe candidate was held to be acceptable. The Apex Court further has held as follows:
13
"19. This Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad [(2012) 4 SCC 407] , held as under : (SCC pp. 434-35, paras 58-60) "58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, ex-
President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of the law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria.
59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro rationevoluntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons.
60. Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party."14
20. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. [(2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] , wherein it was held that the applicant before the High Court could not challenge the appointment of a person as she was in no way aggrieved, for she herself could not have been selected by adopting either method. Moreover, the appointment cannot be challenged at a belated stage and, hence, the petition should have been rejected by the High Court on the grounds of delay and non-
maintainability alone.
21. In Balbir Kaur v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board [(2008) 12 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 106] , it has been held that a violation of the equality clauses enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, or discrimination in any form, can be alleged, provided that, the writ petitioner demonstrates a certain appreciable disadvantage qua other similarly situated persons. While dealing with the similar issue, this Court in Raju RamsingVasave v. Mahesh DeoraoBhivapurkar [(2008) 9 SCC 54 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 802] held : (SCC p. 74, para 45) "45. We must now deal with the question of locus standi. A special leave petition ordinarily would not have been entertained at the instance of the appellant. Validity of appointment or otherwise on the basis of a caste certificate granted by a committee is ordinarily a matter between the employer and the employee. This Court, however, when a question is raised, can take cognizance of a matter of such grave importance suo motu. It may not treat the special leave petition as a public interest litigation, but, as a public law litigation. It is, in a proceeding of that nature, permissible for the court to make a detailed enquiry with regard to the broader aspects of the matter although it was initiated at the instance of a person having a private interest. A deeper scrutiny can be made so as to enable the court to find out as to whether a party to a lis is guilty of commission of fraud on the Constitution. If such an enquiry subserves the greater public interest and has a 15 far-reaching effect on the society, in our opinion, this Court will not shirk its responsibilities from doing so." (See also Manohar Joshi v. State of Maharashtra[(2012) 3 SCC 619].)
22. In Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. [(2001) 4 SCC 734 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 806 : AIR 2001 SC 1739] , this Court held :
(SCC p. 736, para 2) "2. ... Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief."
23. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo motu, in such respect."
(Emphasis supplied) 16 The Apex Court was considering a case where the complainant therein did not belong to Scheduled Caste, he was infact belonging to general category. The contention was, he was espousing the cause for justice for the people belonging to the Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the Court holds that the complainant had no locus to challenge a caste certificate given to a Scheduled Caste. At paragraph 23, the Apex Court clearly holds that in exceptional circumstances, the Court may examine the issue even if bonafides of the complainant are doubted, but the issue raised by him in the opinion of the Court would require consideration. The petitioner, in the case at hand, is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has no locus to call in question a caste certificate issued to another Scheduled Caste person, which according to him is a fraud, and takes away the right and interest of a genuine Scheduled Caste. The revision filed by the second respondent is elaborate and every minute detail is narrated, any observation made on the contents of the revision petition will prejudice the case of the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner.
17
11. Insofar as the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of R.S.MAHADEV (supra) is concerned, the said judgment would also be inapplicable to the facts of the case, as the Division Bench was considering a case where the complainant was a busybody and not a person aggrieved. The facts therein were that the person who had secured caste certificate did not belong to Scheduled Caste by birth, but by marriage to a Scheduled Caste she was given the caste certificate. The question was a person belonging to other community could be given a caste certificate on marriage .That was challenged by the complainant four years after the retirement of the beneficiary. The Division Bench clearly holds that the complaint therein had no locus to challenge the caste certificate issued to the beneficiary therein. Therefore, both the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner - one in the case of MS. M.N. KALAVATHI and the other in the case of AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN, would become inapplicable to the facts of the case, qua the solitary submission i.e., the locus of the complainant.
18
12. In the light of the aforesaid judgment not becoming applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as the complainant in the case on hand does belong to a Scheduled Caste, the writ petition challenging a show cause notice is unentertainable. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner as is directed and produce all such documents that are needed to advance his case in the revision petition. None of the observations made in the course of this order will either influence or bind the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner.
13. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:SS