Karnataka High Court
Sri.Anoop.H.M. S/O.Sharnaiah.H.M. vs The Deputy Commissioner on 9 October, 2020
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.P.NO.147354/2020 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.ANOOP.H.M. S/O.SHARNAIAH.H.M.
AGE : 29 YEARS, R/O:NO.700/3, 6TH WARD,
AANJANEYA COLONY, KOTTUR,
DIST : BALLARI-583134.
.....PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADV.)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BALLARI DISTRICT
BALLARI-583101
2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT CELL,
KALABURGI.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HOSPET SUB DIVISION, HOSPET.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
HOSPET TALUK, HOSPET.
..... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.JAGADISH, SPL. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING WRIT
2
OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AT
ANNEXURE-B, C AND D PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.3, 2 AND 1 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ORDER/NOTICE
DATED 06.07.2018 NO.Kum.Ethare;Appeal;104; 2018-19
DATED 27.09.2019, NO.Kum;jathi; parisiline; 83;2018-19
AND DATED 09.01.2020 BY RESPONDENTS 3, 2, 1
RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THIS COURT, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order at Annexure-B dated 06.07.2018 and communications at Annexures-C and D dated 27.09.2019 and 09.01.2020 respectively.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he belongs to Beda Jangam caste and he applied for caste certificate. However, respondent No.4 postponed the issuance of caste certificate on the ground that, he has to get guidance from the government. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 as provided under Section 4-B of the Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, 3 Etc.)Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Respondent No.3 vide order at Annexure-B has dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1, as provided under Section 4-F of the Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pending consideration of the revision petition, the Deputy Commissioner has issued the impugned communication dated 27.09.2019 calling for certain clarifications from ADGP, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Bengaluru. In response to the said communication, respondent No.2 has now issued a notice to the petitioner to appear before him for the purpose of an enquiry. He further submits that, respondent No.1 is required to consider the revision petition on its merit on the basis of the available material on record and separate enquiry cannot be conducted by him. Therefore, he submits that 4 Annexures-C and D are not sustainable in law and accordingly prays for quashing of the same.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri.C.Jagadish submits that, Annexure-C is a internal communication and Annexure-D is a notice for enquiry and therefore, the same cannot be questioned in this writ petition and the said notice is issued for the purpose of verifying the status of the petitioner's caste and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. It is not in dispute that, revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 4-F of the Act is pending consideration before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is required to consider the said revision petition strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and a separate enquiry cannot be held at this stage. Reading of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 would go to show 5 that, it is only the committee, after the enquiry referred to in the sub-rules (2) and (3) finds that the claim is doubtful, then they can refer the matter to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement for detailed investigation. Therefore, respondent No.1 at this stage cannot exercise such a power. The impugned communications as per Annexures-C and D are therefore not sustainable in law.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned communications/notice at Annexures-C and D are accordingly quashed. Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner shall consider the revision petition pending before him strictly in accordance with the provisions of Act and Rules.
Sd/-
JUDGE M BS /-