Sri B M Kotresh S/O B M Gurubasavarajaiah vs The Tahsildar on 2 November, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri B M Kotresh S/O B M Gurubasavarajaiah vs The Tahsildar on 2 November, 2009

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL€;IsI:«:%%»iAL% 

DATEB mrs mg 2:26 DAY OF' NOVEMBER :géo9%'T   A'

BEFORE _m-_

THE HON'BLE'MR. JUSTICE.' AJ:TJ.1.{;u:v&%1A1;%%   

WRIT PETITION NOS.2364V1543/'2{)O9(ﬁ§ﬁ.gC€}"E

BETWEEN :

1. SI'i.B.M.K0ﬂ'eSh, ._  i 
S/o.B.I\v£.GrurubasavaI'Aa._;?3.ia}3.,   ' "
Age: 20 years,..{3{;c~:_St'i1dent; -. 

2. Kumari B.1:21.:<;3-aa:an::ua;%vJ'1A%«T   

  
Age:   " 
Occ: Studr:1"1t..   '

3. sri.Bhav:gaamQur§baséyaraaia11,
Sf o.B. M. G212': zbasavaiagéiah,

 _ Age:«.i}'2 ya'-ars, (3ccV:V$§;1}.dsz1t

 PétifiQn.e:*.NQ?3 and 3 are minors

' E€;p.res3f1?:_€:d "!V::isyf.1:I"::ei1' naturai
Guarciian fathﬁr
Sri.  M, Gs:r:xbasavara§aiah,

 Q Age: 4~3"3{ea:'s, R/9.No.'93,
--« I ' " . __ "Es? Floor, 'Sm Cross,
 A ..jL'K§§€i;Layout, J.P.Nagar,
 _ 'sat -Phase, §engaluru--'?8. ...1:>B:'rrr1oNERs

    .r§(By Sri.Jayakumar S.Pati§, Sr.Adv.}



AND :

1. The Tahsiidar,
Bangalore East Taiuk,
Krishgrxarajapura,
Dist: Bangaloie.

2. The Assistant Commissioner, 
Bangalore Ncarth Sub-Division,  v A_  .y   V  
B$nga.113I'u- 1.  

(By Sri.C.Jagadish, Aév;'} --

Thmﬁiwrit 13etiti0zrs'3vsi2,f1}eCi 131146?" "Aé1'tic1es"A:2'26 am}
227 of the Constitution"0f'Ind.ia§w.itf1« pr-ayer to quash
the order dated 28.03.2009 pa$$ed  produced
as Axxnczxure 'M' and tl1§:"(}'r1:1€té'r daiﬁzd 1'~.6,Q€=.3009 passed
by the R2 pr0duCi'::ﬁ_1'as  fQ.'f*.9_r3_.dj etc.

Thégse coxzzing or; for preliminary
hearing in 'IE3' (.'%1'o1z:g9z_T'£t;i$<'£iay, tha Court made tbs

f0l}(}wi3:1g: . .A 

  '-i'f'i1¢"-LquaﬁtiaféAiswhether the petitionars are Hindu

  92* Beds: Jungam and Whether they

are' éﬁﬁﬂed  'faservatien. it is 13:31: in diS§}1it€ that they

 '~.__a-reA :":0t"c1g§§ssifieé as ﬁeda Jungam. The proceedings, it

 é    have a chéxtkerad career. .--@------



-3-

2. The petitioners claiming to be Beéa Jungam
made an application :0 the ist respondent

rzeeessary documents for issuance of the _ Caste Certiﬁcate. The Revenue inspeeﬁor afzici' 'A K Accountant made a. local (;'I1C{111'3£'_';*'A,"

submitteé a report to the"iV__v1$§ reisperidenfgi petitioners mlong to Bede _';:-%e'As;ge:1<:1{--:;r}.t WI'{)t€ a letter to the and send 3 report w1ﬁ1e'i:]3_er the" to the Beda Jungam casie~, Oﬁicer drew a __s-taiiting that the petitieners belong to em Jiuniggsin. The Tahsiidar aiso sent a repo:§_;ﬁ%iI't31aﬂy Vieitefatiizg what was stated by the Social According to the petitioners, the 1"

of censiﬁeiing the applieatierz of the V -epetitiifizxeret éieciming Shem to be classified as Bede K V' " Viwrete a letter to the Cemmissiener, Soveiai Deveiepment, Bangaiere seeking inferzrzation fer " '«:VVieei1ance of 3 Caste Certiﬁcate. Suﬁiee ii to say that the 38% respondent did net consider the application in spite ﬂ ,4- of the zepeated requests. in the mean time remirqder applicmriene were made informing that £116 15' petiiiergeevv was appearing for GET examination 4' ~ helé 3:1 19.04.2008. Respondent Ne.1'did'iit3t::%iv<:e§$::i{;ier "

the said repreeentaﬁons, but hoaieveﬁ *e,=':~; fie. a 7-] the Addiecmaz Director -ef Peliee, Celi seeking fer 21 e;;»e;;i.f':c --...fer iSeL1.a1";ee of a Caste : Eﬁcate, Theceﬂtentiéeia V_ é:;f1e_Vpetitie:1er is géaat the Tahsﬂdef'd9ee:_:idt 210 so. * ~ this C0211': in W.P.Nc>.e':22'1--/ havirzg regard te the e:.1i3Inissiene'"':ﬁac%e' by the 15': respondent therein him t9' "ee}f1Veider the application of the with law. Since that was met deee;.4:_Veo§3tei:%:'pie preeeedings were initiateé as against " N211. The 15' respondent withtmt helémg am else in vieiation of the pmcipzes of nature} Eﬁueitiee passed an erder rejecting the applieatien of the " " petitioners. The petiticmers were once again before this Ceurt in W33. 530.7314/2008. This Court dismissed the 251-

- 5 -

writ petition hslciizflg that the Certificate issued by the 13* respozzdent is just and yreper in the eireumsta;seés.. Writ appeal was flied as against the said "

W.A.N0.1265/2008. Writ appeal was matter was remitted to the 1st is adjudication. The writ appeai ' that sufficient opportunity 2 the petitioners to produce A and aise :3. personal Tahsiidar nevertheless m.s1:ei*is1"';5rodueed do not inspire :eonﬁ:de:1._ceAV :éand--.4v€iee§ined to issue a Certificate dee1s1'iz1g"ﬂj_1e Beds Jungam. On appeal by the ' mtitie}'ie:*s',' efder of the 18% respondent is . _ V «this petitioxz.

S.Patii, learned Senior Cetmsei s.ppes;t*iIzsg' the petitioners made two fsld H " .4"*--s%;:hx:1issi{§Iis. One is that sufficient epporttmity was _'_@i}Ii3e"agai1: net given inasmuch as notwithstanding the VT :'..:t):£'(i£er passed by the writ appeal Ceurt, the 3." 9» '4 ifespzbndeni: has reiterated the order passed in the earlier ﬂ I _/K' -5- occasion. Thus, there is no application of mind. The second (:o:r1t.eI1fio;1 raised is that three vital documents 32.62., the Certiiieate issued by the then Commissioner of Bellary on 8* October, 1953__f:i.éis-«i been considered, so aiso the two af'ifs§1avits_«f1lec§:: ii the course of enquiry. Thus, the in the earlier proceedings has ;="i_o't.

5. Mr.C.Jagadish, for the respondents submits on record does notidiseloste. father belonged to the He submits that the pei;i'£ioner's faiiizei' isi.'-i11"vGox}ernment service and in the 3 'itis that he belongs to Veerashaiva the question of issuing a Caste that the petitioners beiong to the " 'A'B?e'.:1na does not arise. In so far as the affidavits 'cor_1Q:emed, he submits that the same have been is ooxlsidemd.

J. /

6. Apparently, aftef ?1:emand, only these three documents are brought 01:11 record to buttress Contantion that the petitiorzers belong to Beda "

and not Veerashaiva Jtmgam. in sg sertiﬁcate issued by the Deputy J yéar 1953 is conmmed, a oi; V' ciiscicsses that it does not 1:9 father but belongs to, the petitioners' father. V

7. £13" faﬁas are concerned, .23. perusal ofvfhé $1.359 disclose as to how the éeponegis tlnéfeigj aria fé:.1é.i:éd t0 the petitieners' father. d'iscIoS§é$"'that they are very close relatives. Tim: is a very sweepirxg statement 'Vand dc:-eis :10: the petitiotiers anywhere. Inéeed how " :f' {hf:i' glepofmxﬁts am relateé t0 the: petitioners is required Endrseci the deponents am mquired to state how exactiy thus}? are close 1:92 the petitioner's " "father. Iiléﬁﬁé the said important material is lacking in " the afﬁdavii.

8. Another factor, which certainly would agajnet the petitioners is, the entxy made in "

Regster of their father'. Indeed the _ has recorded a finding that in iv stated that the petiiieners' father béeieligsto ' Jangam. The lineage ef the is parents. They always as of the parents unless i1':i_s po%p.te§_ made in the Service l3<3l;'£jﬁcates or any material entered that the petiiionezfs' = the Veerashaiva Jarigam. The staeterriemf metie and the entry made in the .-'v.(_}OV<?i'i';1IIl€§l;Ti¥ZVv SefViee____,Regis¥:er on the basis of the V"--etz1i.:'e'izxe1*:1;"ma§i'e.._by their father cannot be discarded. Incleeiill the statement and erxtry is made in the é"i'eeer<:l's.. ex"; the basis ef the statement made by the ﬁieiitiezigers' father. Hence, E am ef the View the: these deeumeﬁts, which are seught to be pressed irate ;'%l'ViCt?. before this Couri, caxmet be accepted inasmuch as they have been suitably eensidered by the Appellate W '//.T'' .. 9 -

Authmfity as Wei} as the Orighai Authei>3:'ity'. The petitioners Carmot be heard to say that they were' :ﬁ«:}t given sufﬁcient apporttimity inasmuch as in t1fie"C:':fzi;_éx9;s_.__ A' passed by the Tahsikiar as well as inc'. » Authority, it is cleariy statad iv T sufficient opportmlﬁy. Thus; -to Iﬂ§.ﬂiiﬂd, xiis vicﬁation of Principles of 3'sEat11:*2;1:1::';JTV'1.:1's.f.i§::e." ' H'

9. Having regard .4 petitioners have failed to iii support of their ungam, I am of the View VV the Tahsildar as well as this' do not warrant A. _____ V . V ' Sd/4-i JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court