Karnataka High Court
Sri.Sharanayya vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 9 June, 2022
Author: S. Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S. Vishwajith Shetty
1 W.P.No.201687/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.201687/2021 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SRI GANGADHARAYYA S/O BASALINGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O AT AND POST.KARADAKAL VILLAGE,
TQ.LINGASUGURU, DIST.RAICHUR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI B.PATIL AND
SRI A.S.RAWOOR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR DISTRICT,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR-584101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
LINGASUGUR SUB-DIVISION,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
LINGASUGUR, DIST.RAICHUR-584122.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
LINGASUGUR TALUK,
OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR,
RAICHUR DISTRICT-584122.
2 W.P.No.201687/2021
4. REVENUE INSPECTOR,
LINGASUGUR.
5. CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT CELL
THROUGH SP DCRE, KALABURAGI REGION,
DOOR NO.1-100, HEROOR PARK,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.JAGADISH, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER IN CASE NO.RDS 1100378
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AUTHORITY DATED 03/12/2020
AS AT ANNEXURE-F REJECTING THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY
THE PETITIONER SEEKING FOR ISSUANCE OF CASTE CERTIFICATE
AND CONSEQUENTIALLY TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF 2ND AND
3RD RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES DATED 19/03/2018 AND
05/10/2018 BEARING NO. ¸ÀASÉå:PÀA/¸ÀPÁ®-1/C¦Ã®Ä/08/2018-19 AS
AT ANNEXURE-B AND C AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES
TO ISSUE CASTE CERTIFICATE BY REFERRING TO THE
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE PETITIONER BY HOLDING
LOCAL INSPECTION AFTER DUE ENQUIRY, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-F wherein he has confirmed the orders passed by 3 W.P.No.201687/2021 the respondents No.2 and 3 vide Annexures 'B' and 'C' dated 19.03.2018 and 05.10.2018 respectively.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner who belonged to Beda Jangama caste, was admittedly earlier issued the caste certificate stating that he belongs to Lingayat community. The petitioner subsequently has made an application before the Tahasidlar contending that he belongs to Beda Jangama Caste and accordingly he had requested to cancel his earlier caste certificate issued to the effect that he belongs to Lingayat Community and prayed to issue a certificate to the effect that he belongs to Beda Jangama caste which is admittedly a scheduled caste. The Tahasildar on receipt of such an application had called for the report from the competent authorities and thereafterwards after holding an enquiry had passed an order dated 19.03.2018, rejecting the application of the petitioner. Being 4 W.P.No.201687/2021 aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal as provided under Section 4B of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Assistant Commissioner who vide his order dated 05.10.2018 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Tahasildar. Being aggrieved by the same revision petition was filed invoking Section 4F of the Act before the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner. Even the said revision petition was dismissed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner vide order Annexure-F dated 03.12.2020. Challenging these three orders, the petitioner is before this court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner has relied upon the two circulars dated 27.07.1977 and 22.07.1978 and based on the same the impugned order vide Annexure-F has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner confirming the order passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. He submits that the aforesaid 5 W.P.No.201687/2021 referred two circulars of the year 1977 and 78 have set aside by this Court in the case of Kulkarni Geeta M vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in ILR 1996 KAR 2672 and this court has declared that these two circulars are illegal and ultra vires and also observed that the said circulars need not be taken into consideration while considering the applications for grant of caste certificates.
5. He submits that the Mahazar report submitted by the Village Accountant is the document which is required to be taken into consideration and except the same no other document is required to be appreciated for the purpose of issuing the caste certificate in view of the Circular vide Annexure-E dated 21.03.2018.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the judgment in the case of Kulkarni Geeta M (supra) is no more good law having regard to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.56187/2013 dated 17.12.2020. He places reliance on Section 4-A(5) of the Act and submits that the 6 W.P.No.201687/2021 burden of proving that the candidate or his parent or guardian belongs to Schedules Castes, Schedules Tribes or Other Backwards Classes shall be always on the applicant and said burden has not been discharged by the petitioner herein. He also placed reliance upon Rule 3-A(3)(b) of the Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.,) Rules, 1992 and submits that perusal of the said Rule would clearly go to show that during the course of the enquiry the applicant is required to produce his birth certificate, school certificate and such relevant document and he is also at liberty to examine his parents or guardian or any other person who has the knowledge of the status of the applicant or his parents.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that such an exercise has been not at all done by the petitioner herein and no independent documents or evidence has been placed by the petitioner to discharge his burden under Section 4-A(5) of the Act. He submits that there is a finding of fact recorded by the three authorities which cannot be 7 W.P.No.201687/2021 interfered by this court in exercise of its extraordinary power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India and submits that petition is devoid of merits.
8. I have carefully appreciated the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material on record.
9. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of G.K.Rudramuniswamy in Writ Petition No.56187/2019 disposed of on 17.12.2020 has held that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah vs. Ramachandra Veerappa and another reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1962, the judgment of this court in the case of Kulkarni Geeta M., is no more a good law. In view of the said order passed in the case of G.K.Rudramuniswamy, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner has erred in relying upon the two circulars of the year 1977 and 1978 in view of the judgment of Kulkarni Geeta M. (supra), is liable to be rejected. In the case of 8 W.P.No.201687/2021 Shri Mohankumar vs. State of Karnataka and others, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.111482/2017 disposed of on 10.08.2020 has observed in para 11 and 12 as follows :-
"11. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah (supra) that the applicant has to establish in no uncertain terms that he belongs to a particular community so as to be conferred with a certificate, which would provide certain entitlement to the holder of the certificate.
12. Merely because the caste Jangama and Beda Jangama are synonymous, the petitioner without establishing that he belongs to Beda Jangama community cannot seek for such certificate. The school leaving certificate, which has been produced by the petitioner himself would indicate that the petitioner belongs to Jangama community and even this certificate there is no entry made in the column referencing to the fact whether the petitioner belongs to SC/ST, this document being one that has been issued at an undisputed point of time and one which has been issued at the instance of the petitioner and/or his family members cannot be sought to be overridden by self serving statements made by the villagers and/or the certificates issued by the organization, which are not so recognized.
10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent the burden to prove that the petitioner or his parents or his guardian belonged to Schedule Castes and 9 W.P.No.201687/2021 Scheduled Tribes and other backwards classes has not been discharged by the petitioner by placing relevant documents or by examining independent witnesses as provided under Rule 3-A(3)(b) of the Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.,) Rules, 1992.
11. Except placing reliance on the panchanama drawn by the Village Accountant, the petitioner has failed to produce any other documents or witness in support of his case. Admittedly, in the case on hand the petitioner was issued caste certificate earlier to the effect that petitioner belonged to Veerashaiva Lingayat Community and the said certificate was renewed periodically. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that at any point of time either in his school records or anywhere else he was shown belonging to Beda Jangama caste as contended by him. The petitioner has also not produced any material to show that his father or any of his ancestors or guardian belonged to Beda Jangama caste as is sought to be made out by the petitioner now. Under the circumstances, I am of the 10 W.P.No.201687/2021 considered view that the authorities concerned having appreciated the entire material available on record, were fully justified in passing the order's impugned and the petitioner has failed to make out a case to interfere with the said orders by pointing out the illegality or irregularities that has been committed by the authorities concerned while passing the said order's.
12. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn