Karnataka High Court
Kiran Swamy And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 27 September, 2022
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
WRIT PETITION NO.226209/2020
BETWEEN:
01. KIRAN SWAMY S/O RAVINDRA SWAMY
AGE: 15 YEARS OCC: STUDENT
02. GAYATRI SWAMY D/O RAVINDRA SWAMY
AGE: 13 YEARS OCC: STUDENT
03. RUDRESH SWAMY S/O RAVINDRA SWAMY
AGE: 10 YEARS OCC: STUDENT.
ALL ARE R/O: H.NO.8/11/254,
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, BIDAR.
THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 BEING MINORS
REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR NATURAL FATHER
SRI. RAVINDRA SWAMY
S/O: KALLAYYA SWAMY
AGE: 42 YEARS
R/O: H.NO.8-11-254 RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
BIDAR-585 401.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI. D. R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL
APPEARING FOR SRI. RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
01. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR,
BENGALURU-560 001.
02. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
DR.AMBEDKAR VIDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2
03. THE DEPUTY COMMISSINOER AND
THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 401.
D.C. OFFICE, BIDAR-585 401.
04. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BIDAR
DC OFFICE, BIDAR-585 401.
05. THE TAHSILDAR
TALUKA AURAD B.
DIST: BIDAR-585 401.
06. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
NAUBAD, BIDAR-585 402.
07. THE TALUKA SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER,
AURAD-B TALUKA
DIST:BIDAR - 585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. JAGADISH, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO (A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER
IMPUGNED PASSED IN APPEAL NO. KAM / SANKIRNA / CR / 08 /
2019-20 DATED 13.07.2020 AS AT ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BIDAR AS
ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY, (B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 TO CONSIDER THE
APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS AS AT ANNEXURE-A, A1 AND
A2 SEEKING ISSUANCE OF CASTE CERTIFICATES AS 'BEDA
JANGAMA' WITHIN SUCH STIPULATED TIME AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of certiorari to
(a) quash the impugned order passed in Appeal No. Kam / Sankirna / CR / 08 / 2019-20 dated 13.07.2020 as at Annexure-M passed by the 4th respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Bidar as illegal and arbitrary, (b) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.3 to 5 to consider the application of the petitioners as at Annexures- A, A1 and A2 seeking issuance of caste certificates as 'Beda Jangama' within such stipulated time.
02. It is contended by the petitioners that they are belonging to 'Beda Jangama' caste and they are residents of Bidar since by birth. They are originally hale from Halahalli village Tq: Aurad Dist: Bidar. Their main family occupation was begging flour and performing religious customary functions since time immemorial. The petitioners are known as Beda Jangama, Jangama Swami and Ayyagolu, within the vicinity. They are treated as religious priest of Lingayat Community. It is further contended that 4 their father - Sri. Ravindra Swamy has got caste certificate as 'Beda Jangama'. All the school records and transfer certificates of the petitioners reflects the social status of the petitioners' caste as 'Beda Jangama'. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application before respondent No.5 - Tahasildar seeking for issuance of caste certificate as 'Beda Jangama'. The respondent No.5 - Tahasildar had directed the Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant concerned to hold an enquiry with regard to the caste of father of the petitioners. On 10.04.2018 the concerned officials have submitted a report. The respondent No.5 - Tahasildar at the initial stage had rejected the application of father of the petitioners. The same was challenged in the Writ Petition No.202022/2019. The Coordinate Bench of this Court set- aside the order of respondent No.5 - Tahasildar and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The respondent No.5 - Tahasildar passed an order on 23.08.2019 holding that the father of the petitioners is entitled for caste certificate as 'Beda Jangama' and issued caste certificate on 27.08.2019 as 'Beda Jangama'.
5
03. It is further contended that issuance of caste certificate as 'Beda Jangama' was objected by the Karnataka Rajya Dalit Sangarsh Samithi by filing a complaint before respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner without any power vested with him had issued notice on 18.12.2019 for holding enquiry on the issuance of caste certificate. The said notice was challenged in Writ Petition No.200002/2020. The Coordinate Bench of this Court on 09.01.2020, after considering the matter on merits granted an interim order of stay of the said proceedings initiated by respondent No.5 - Tahasildar. Thereafter, based on the application filed by the petitioners, the respondent No.5 - Tahasildar directed the Revenue Inspector, Bidar to submit a report. Based on the said direction the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector have submitted a report on 10.10.2019 recommending for issuance of the caste certificate specifically making a remark that the school records of the petitioners reflects the social status as 'Beda Jangama' in caste column.
6
04. The respondent No.5 - Tahasildar without verifying any materials produced in support of the application, has proceeded to reject the application by issuing endorsements dated 28.10.2019 and 31.10.2019 stating that there is no material produced in support of the application. It is further contended that the Government of India vide Gazette dated 11.08.1950 has published the list of caste to be treated as Scheduled Caste and has declared the 'Beda Jangama' caste as Schedule Caste at Part - 10 pertaining to Hyderabad area at Sl.No.4. Further Gazette was published on 29.10.1956 pursuant to the reorganization of the States under Section 41 of State Reorganization Act, 1956, declaring the 'Beda Jangama' caste as Scheduled Caste in Part-I and Mysore State under Section 4 at Sl.No.4 described the caste 'Beda Jangama' as Scheduled Caste.
05. It is further contended that the office of respondent No.2 - The Commissioner, Department of Social Welfare has issued the guidelines for issuance of 'Beda Jangama' caste certificate to be followed by all the 7 respective authorities in Karnataka vide circular dated 08.03.2010. The authorities are directed to rely upon six documents while assessing the caste of a particular person as 'Beda Jangama' which are:- (1) The guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 22.03.1977, (2) The guidelines issued by the Government of India together with the list dated 27.07.1977, (3) Karnataka Gazette Report, (4) The book written by Dr. K.S. Singh Former Director General of Anthropological Survey of India, Government of India on the scheduled caste (Volume-II at Page No.202 to
207), (5) The Government Circular dated 05.10.1995 and (6) The Karnataka Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes (Reservation for Appointment etc.,) Act, 2000.
06. Though, the petitioners have furnished all the relevant documents as listed in the guidelines, but their applications were rejected. Aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent No.5 - Tahasildar, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before respondent No.4 - the Assistant Commissioner, by placing all the material 8 documents. The respondent No.4 - the Assistant Commissioner has partly allowed the appeal on 13.07.2020 by holding that the caste certificate issued in favour of father of the petitioners is a subject matter of enquiry before the District Caste Verification Committee and directed respondent No.5 - Tahasildar to take appropriate legal recourse and remitted the matter back to the Tahasildar. Aggrieved by the said order dated 13.07.2020 the petitioner has filed this petition.
07. Heard Sri. D. R. Ravishankar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Ravi B. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. C. Jagadish, the learned Special Counsel for the respondents.
08. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners argued that though father of the petitioners is issued a caste certificate as 'Beda Jangama', but the Tahasildar has rejected the application of these petitioners by issuing endorsement dated 28.10.2019 and 31.10.2019 at Annexures-H, H1 and H2, which is illegal. He further argued that the Government of India vide Gazette dated 9 11.08.1950 has published the list of caste to be treated as Scheduled Caste and declared the 'Beda Jangama' as Scheduled Caste at Para No.10 pertaining to Hyderabad area at Sl.No.4. Further an extraordinary Gazette was published on 29.10.1956 pursuant to the reorganization of the State under Section 41 of the State Reorganization Act, 1956 declaring the 'Beda Jangama' caste as Scheduled Caste in Part-I pertaining to Andra Pradesh at Section 3 at Sl.No.4. Further at Part-VIII, Mysore State Section at Sl.No.4 declared the caste of 'Beda Jangama' as a Scheduled Caste. The authorities are directed to rely upon six documents as stated above in the circular while assessing the caste of a particular person as 'Beda Jangama' on 08.03.2010. Though, the petitioners have produced all the documents as per circular Annexure-J, but the Tahasildar has rejected the representation of the petitioners. The petitioners' father already was issued caste certificate as 'Beda Jangama' from the Tahasildar, same is applicable to these petitioners, who are his children. But the Tahasildar has rejected the representation of the petitioners without valid reasons.
10
09. The learned Senior counsel further argued that no matter is pending before the District Caste Verification Committee. The learned Senior counsel argued that though this Court in W.P.Nos.201303-304/2018 filed by the father of these petitioners which was disposed of on 21.01.2019 and discussed at Paras No.12 and 13 regarding caste of the petitioners' father and held that the Tahsildar shall pass an order in accordance with law as observed in the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that though this Court in W.P.Nos.201303-304/2018 and W.P.No.200002/2020, referred to each and every document placed on record to substantiate the caste of the father of the petitioners as 'Beda Jangama'. The respondent No.4 - The Assistant Commissioner, Bidar remitted the matter to the respondent No.5 - Tahasildar, which is illegal.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. V. Giri vs. D. S. Dora reported in AIR 1959 SC 1318, in the case of K. P. Manu vs. Chairman Scrutiny Committee, reported in 11 (2015) 4 SCC 1 and in the case of Geeta Kulkarni vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1996 page 2672. These judgments are passed in relation to the identification of the caste 'Beda Jangama' for issuance of the caste certificate by the appropriate authority.
11. The learned Senior counsel argued about all the material documents in respect of caste certificate issued to forefather of the petitioners. The gazette notification issued by the Central Government was circulated to the State Government, but the authorities without considering all these documents, issued the impugned endorsement. The learned Senior counsel relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.02.2022 in W.P.No.200002/2020 wherein this Court has allowed the petition filed by the petitioners' father and quashed the notice at Annexure-X dated 18.12.2019 and quashed the entire proceedings before the respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner in view of the judgment of this Court as referred above. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in 12 W.P.No.202022/2019 dated 17.06.2019 has observed that the Tahasildar without referring the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.201303-304/2018 (GM-CC) has again rejected the representation. This Court held that the observation made by the Tahasildar is unnecessary and virtually amounts by passing the order passed by this Court. The Tahasildar should know his limits. Again this Court directed authorities to consider the case of the father of the petitioners. But in spite of that the Court order, the Tahasildar has not considered the same. Now, the father of the petitioners has obtained his Caste Certificate as 'Beda Jangama', but his children request for issuance of caste certificate for them was rejected, which is illegal. Hence, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners prayed to allow the petition and direct the Tahasildar to issue caste certificate to the petitioners as 'Beda Jangam' Scheduled Caste, as prayed in the petition.
12. Against this, Sri. C. Jagadish, the learned Special Counsel for the respondents apart from their written objections argued that the petitioners are not entitled for 13 the above relief in writ petition as alternative remedy of revision as provided under Section 4 (f) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.,) Act, 1990 is available to them. The learned counsel further argued that father of the petitioners belonged to Hindu Lingayat Caste. Throughout his education career and even at the time of enrolling as an Advocate, the father of the petitioners' has not claimed his caste as 'Beda Jangama' which is notified as Scheduled Castes under Article 341 of the Constitution of India in respect of State of Karnataka. On the other hand, he has declared his caste as Hindu Lingayat Jangam. The grand-father of the petitioners also belongs to Veerashaiva Lingayat and he has undergone Ayyachari Deekhsa by Shivalinga Shivacharya Samstana Mutt, Hadgapur, Aurad Taluka, Bidar District. So, it is clear that grand-father and father of the petitioners belongs to Veerashaiva Lingayat and not 'Beda Jangama', which is Scheduled Caste.
14
13. The learned counsel produced the admission abstract of father of the petitioners, which shows that the father of the petitioners performing Ayyachari Deeksha to their grand-father by Shivalinga Shivacharya Samstana Mutt, at Annexures-R1, R2 and R3. The learned counsel further argued that 'Beda Jangama' caste community is also known as Jangama, Swamy, Ayyagolu. The father of the petitioners claims that Jangama Community is synonyms to Beda Jangama community, which is notified as Scheduled Caste. The Jangama Community is a priestly caste among the Lingayat community and they seek alms and they are ritual experts and their social status is very high. The anthropological ethnography traits of Jangama and Beda Jangama Communities are totally different. He has narrated difference between two caste as under:-
Jangama Beda Jangama
01. Jangama are Beda Jangamas are priest for
priest for the Holeya (Mahars) and Madiga
Veerashaiva (Chamars) they are nomads.
Lingayat Their main occupation is
Community and matweaving and sooth saying.
their status are
high in the society
15
02. They are Their Chief head is called
matadipatis. Their 'Kulapeddadu'
sur-names are
Swamy, Ayya,
They run peetas.
03. Their social status Their social status is very low in
is next to the the society. They suffer from the
Brahmins caste. stigma of untouchabilty. Their
Their mother mother tongue is Telugu.
tongue is
'Kannada'.
04. They are called as Their sur-names are 'Boota;
Swamijis and the 'Gandham; and 'Toorupati'
people from the Pastamavallu, Kallavelu. The
cross sections of cross sections of the society treat
the society washes this people as untouchables.
the feet of
Jangama by water
and drink the
water treating the
same as
Padodoka.
05. They are pure They consume alcohol and eat
vegetarians. flesh. They are non-vegetarians
They do not
consume alcohol.
06. They do not They suffer from the stigma of
suffers from the untouchability.
stigma of
untouchability. On
the other hand,
they practice
untouchability on
scheduled caste
category persons
07. They follow They do not wear linga. There is
'Acharya Deeksha' no customs of 'Lilngadharana;'
at the time of and there is no customs of
wearing Linga. Acharya Deeksha.
08. They worshiop lord They do no worship Lord Shiva
Shiva and and Siddaramashwamy. There is
16
Siddaramaswamy custom of Bootha Aradhana.
09. Dead bodies are Dead bodies are buried in a lying
buried in a sitting position.
position
10. Their literacy is Their literacy is very low.
very high
11. Their main Their main occupation is
occupation is matweaving and soothsaying.
agriculture
14. The learned special counsel argued that these characteristics clearly show that 'Jangama' is different from 'Beda Jangama'. The said community is not a synonym of Beda Jangama or it cannot be treated as a synonyms or equivalent to Beda Jangama community as there is sea of difference. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah vs. Ramachandra Veerappa and another reported in AIR 1996 SC 1962, at Para No.3 held as under:-
"It is seen that under Article 341 of the Constitution, the Presidential Notification is conclusive subject to the amendment under clause (2) of Article 341. In 1976, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act had been made. Admittedly, under item No.19, in relation to the State of Karnataka, Beda Jangamma of Budaga Jangama are declared as 17 Scheduled Cases. As a fact, the finding recorded by the High Court is that the appellant belongs to Veerashiva Lingayath Community and he is a Jangamma. The question therefore, is: whether Veerashiva Lingayath would be considered to be a Scheduled Caste (Beda Jangamma) within the notification issued by the President? It is settled law that the courts cannot give any declaration that the status within synonimous names of castes claimed by the party is conformable to the names specified in the Presidential Notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution."
15. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioners have not disputed about the order passed in W.P.Nos.200303-304/2018 and matter was remanded back. The father of the petitioners also admitted in his petition that their family begging and performing religious customary functions since time immemorial and their caste is 'Beda Jangama' which is called as Jangama, Swamy and Ayyagol and their religion is Lingayat Community. So, this petition averments itself shows that the father of the petitioners does not belongs to 'Beda Jangama'. On this 18 point alone the petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel further argued that now after dismissal of the said writ petition, the petitioner colluding with revenue authorities have obtained caste certificate, which is fraud on the society. He further argued that the Kannada Rajya Dalit Samithi had lodged the complaint before the respondent No.3, which was challenged in W.P.No.200002/2020 and allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the State Government - respondent No.3 preferred the writ appeal in W.A.No.200065/2022 (GM-CC) and matter was partly heard and same was released from part heard and now it is pending. Therefore, the caste certificate of the father of the petitioners is not conclusive, but still it is pending for consideration in writ appeal. Therefore, caste of the father of the petitioners has not attained finality. There is serious dispute with the caste status of the father of the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjan Kumar vs. Union of India and others reported in 2006 SC 1177, has held that the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes is not a bounty to be distributed. To 19 sustain the claim, one must show that he/she suffered disabilities - socially, economically and educationally cumulatively. The concerned authority, before whom such claim is made, is duty bound to satisfy itself that the applicant suffered disabilities socially, economically and educationally before such certificate is issued. Any concerned authority issuing such certificates in a routine manner would be committing the dereliction of Constitutional duty.
16. The learned counsel argued that the order passed by the respondent No.5 rejecting the application of the petitioners is in accordance with law. Except stating that their father has got caste certificate as 'Beda Jangama', which has also not attain finality and pending for consideration in appeal, no other materials are placed by the petitioners to establish that they belongs to 'Beda Jangama' as per Section 5 (4) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.,) Act, 1990. So, with these contentions the learned Special Counsel for the respondents prayed to dismiss the petition.
20
17. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of G. K. Rudramuniswamy vs. District Caste Verification Committee Shimoga and another in W.P.No.56187/2013 (GM-CC). The learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Ishwarayya @ Eshwarayya vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Raichur and others in W.P.No.226919/2020 (GM-CC) dated 09.06.2022 and submits that Rule-3-A (3) (b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.,) Rules, 1992, would clearly go to show that during the course of enquiry the applicant is required to produce his birth certificate, school certificate and such relevant documents 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.
21
18. To this, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners replied that no stay is granted by the Appellate Court and there is no interim order staying the order in writ petition in the writ appeal and still the same is in force. The caste certificate of father of the petitioners is valid as on this date. The caste of the children is the caste of the father. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued to reject the contention of the learned Special Counsel for the respondents and allow the petition.
19. I have perused the averments in writ petition. In support of writ petition, the petitioners have produced the application given to the Tahasildar and also produced transfer certificate dated 28.04.2017 wherein caste is shown as 'Hindu Beda Jangama' and claimed Scheduled Caste. They have also produced the admission abstract wherein the nationality and caste is shown as 'Hindu Beda Jangam'. These documents are of the year 2016-17. The petitioners have also produced the income certificate to show the income of their father is Rs.15,00,000/- and his caste is shown as 'Hindu Beda Jangama' as per Annexure- 22 A1 and A2. The petitioners have also produced the Aadhar Cards. They have also produced the report of the Revenue Inspector with regard to caste certificate in respect of his father - Ravindra Swamy and the order passed in writ petition in W.P.No.202202/2019 (GM-CC). They have also produced the order of the Tahasildar in respect of issuing caste certificate to his father. Some documents are also produced which are gazette notifications.
20. Against this, the learned Special Counsel for the respondents has produced the admission abstract of father of the petitioners at Annexure-R1, wherein the caste is mentioned as 'Lingayat'. In his admission abstract of the school as per Annexure-R2 he has mentioned that his caste nationality is Hindu. There is also Annexure-3 letter issued by Shree Sha. Bra. Shivaling Shivacharry Pattaddevaru. He has also produced the orders in the writ petitions in respect of father of petitioners. He has also produced Annexure-R6 wherein the writ appeal is filed against the order passed in the writ petition of father of the petitioners and matter is pending.
23
21. I have given my anxious consideration to contentions of the petitioners. Offcourse, the documents produced by the respondents also show that father of the petitioners earlier mentioned his caste as 'Lingayat' and subsequently as 'Beda Jangama'. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above, the said matter will have to be enquired by the concerned competent authority. It is also evident that the said authorities have enquired and in view of the Writ Petition Nos.201303-
304/2018 (GM-CC) dated 21.01.2019 and W.P.No.202022/2019 (GM-CC) dated 17.01.2019, have issued a caste certificate in favour of father of the petitioners. Admittedly, no matter is pending before any Caste Verification Committee. The petitioners who are born in the year 2010 have claimed that their caste is 'Beda Jangama' Scheduled Caste as their father caste is also the same. Two writ petitions are filed one by father of the petitioners and other by the petitioners, but it appears that this writ petition is separated. The father of the petitioners has challenged the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner and impleading application. The said writ 24 petition W.P.No.200002/2020 (GM-CC) is allowed and notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner was quashed and impleading application was rejected. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the father of the petitioners claiming himself as 'Beda Jangama' and issuance of his certificate has attained finality as of now. However, it is subject to result of the writ appeal. Therefore, the respondents to consider all these orders passed earlier in writ petitions available on record and also issuance of caste certificate by the order of the Tahasildar to the father of the petitioners and make enquiry as per the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, by considering the material which are placed by the petitioners and shall pass an appropriate orders in accordance with law, in view of observation made in the above said writ petitions in respect of caste of father of the petitioners. Accordingly, in my considered view the matter required to be remand to the concerned authority for making enquiry in accordance with law. Hence, the said endorsement is to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; 25
ORDER I. The writ petition is allowed.
II. The impugned order passed in Appeal No.Kam/Sankirna/CR-08/2019-20 dated 13.07.2020 as at Annexure-M passed by the respondent No.4 - Assistant Commissioner, Bidar, is hereby quashed. III. The respondent No.5 - Tahasildar is directed to considered the applications of the petitioners at Annexures-A, A1 and A2 seeking issuance of caste certificate and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of observation made above and dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ