Karnataka High Court
Sri K J Dundappa vs The Assistant Commissioner on 19 March, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF MARCH, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO.16395/2011(SC/ST)
BETWEEN
1 SRI K J DUNDAPPA
S/O LATE JAVARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT KUDIGE VILLAGE & POST
SOWWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADIKERI
... APPELLANT
(By Sri : PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV. )
AND :
1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MADIKERI SUB-DIVISION
MADIKERI
KODAGU DISTRICT
2 THE THASILDAR
SOWWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT
3 SRI Y T PARAMESH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT KOODLUR VILLAGE
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : A.KESHAVA REDDY, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.17897/2011 DATED
09/08/2011.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, MANJUNATH J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P.No.17897/2011 dt.9.8.2011 is called in question in this appeal.
2. The grievance of the appellant before the Learned Single Judge was that the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Madikeri Sub-Division as per Annexure-M dt.16.11.2010 declaring that the 3rd respondent belongs to Naika (ST) as incorrect and to quash the same on the ground that 3rd respondent does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. According to him, the 3rd respondent belongs to Parivara caste. As per the notification dt.4.4.2008 issued by the State Government the persons misusing the names of SC or ST category by the Parivara, Thalawara, Maleyaru, Kuruba, Bestha and Kolie caste were directed to surrender their Caste Certificate in order to avoid criminal prosecution and therefore the order of 3 the Asst. Commissioner, Madikere Sub-Division in not considering the caste of the 3rd respondent as Parivara is bad in law in the light of the School admission certificate produced by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the Writ Petition on the ground that it is not for the Writ court to entertain the grievance of the petitioner and petitioner has to work out his remedy in the manner known to law elsewhere. Granting such liberty, the petition has been rejected. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.
3. Having heard Mr. Ishwara Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant, we do not see any error committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition because whether 3rd respondent belongs to Parivara community or not is a question of fact and if the Asst. Commissioner has decided the case of the 3rd respondent based on the material available, this Court cannot re- examine the evidence let in by the parties under Writ jurisdiction. If really, 3rd respondent does not belong to SC or ST it is for the appellant to take action in accordance with law.
4
4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.2/12 filed to condone the delay of 15 days is also rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Ak