Karnataka High Court
Smt T Sandya Rani vs The Director, (Marketing) on 28 May, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, B M Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2018
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT APPEAL NO.310/2018 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 311/2018(GM-CC)
IN W.A NO. 310/2018:
BETWEEN:
SMT. T. SANDYA RANI,
D/O SRI. K LAKSHMINARAYANA,
W/O SRI A BALAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ADDEKOPPE VILLAGE,
GOWDIGERE POST,
MANC+HENAHALLI HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 562101.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI G. KRISHNA MURTHY SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI SAMPATH BAPAT, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR, (MARKETING)
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
2
NO.8, SHOORAGI VALLABA DAS NAGAR,
BALLAD PEAR, MUMBAI-38.
2. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, DOORVANI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-16,
REP BY SRI. D.K. BARMON,
CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, (RETAIL)
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION.
3. SMT. KALPANA B.K,
W.O SRI. E. NARAYANA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MARAPPANAHALLI,
TALAGAVARA POST, KAIWARA HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.S. NARAYAN & SRI ARJUN P.R. ADV., FOR R1-2
SRI DILLI RAJAN ADV., FOR
SRI K.N. SUBBA REDDY FOR C/R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
ORDER DATED 11/12/2017 IN W P NO. 15445/2014 (GM-RES)
AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE
AND PASS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.,
IN W.A. NO. 311/2018:
BETWEEN:
SMT. T. SANDYA RANI,
D/O SRI. K LAKSHMINARAYANA,
3
W/O SRI A BALAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ADDEKOPPE VILLAGE,
GOWDIGERE POST, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. KRISHNA MURTHY SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI SAMPATH BAPAT ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
SCHEDULE TRIBES WELFARE
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
KRISHI BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR,
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION
COMMITTEE,CHIKKABALLAPURA.
4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE, CIVIL RIGHTS
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE,
BENGALURU.
5. THE TAHSILDAR,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
4
6. SMT. KALPANA B.K,
W/O SRI. E NARAYANA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MARAPPANAHALLI,
TALAGAVARA POST, KAIWARA HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C. JAGADISH SPL. COUNSEL FOR R1-R5
SRI L. MAHESH FOR C/R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
ORDER DATED 11/12/2017 IN W P NO. 10120/2016 (GM-CC) AND
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY
2ND RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO. CR-6/2014-15 DATED
28/10/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY 5TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO. ICCR/111/2016-17
DATED 25/04/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-S AND PASS SUCH
OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.,
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, B.M.SHYAM PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred these two intra-Court appeals (W.A. No.310/2018 and W.A.No. 311/2018) impugning two separate orders dated 11.12.2017 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.15445/2014 and W.P.No.10120/2016 respectively. In the course of this judgment, for convenience, the parties to these proceedings are referred to as they are arrayed in W.A. No.311/2018 and only Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, which is not a party to the W.A. No. 311/2018 but is a party in W.A. No. 310/2018, is referred to as 'HPCL'.
The writ petition in WP No. 15445/2014 was filed by the sixth respondent impugning the Letter of Intent dated 15.1.2013 issued by HPCL to the appellant offering dealership of retail outlet at Kaiwara Cross Road, Chikkaballapur. This writ petition has been disposed of by the Writ Court quashing the Letter of Intent dated 15.1.2013 and directing HPCL to exclude the appellant from the selection process and to reconsider the remaining applications for the allotment of dealership of retail outlet at Kaiwara Cross Road, Chikkaballapur in the order of merit within two months from the date of order. 6
The writ petition in W.P.No.10120/2016 was filed by the appellant impugning the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the second respondent, the Appellate Authority, setting aside the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 issued by the fifth respondent (Tahsildar, Gowribidanur Taluk) certifying that the appellant belongs to "Nayaka" community (a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Karnataka) and the Order dated 9.10.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner and District Caste Verification Committee, Chikkaballapur - the third respondent - verifying the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 as being permissible and genuine. This writ petition in W.P. No. 10120/2016 has been disposed of as being devoid of merits.
The relevant facts pertaining to these appeals are as follows:
HPCL issued a Public Notification dated 24.2.2008 inviting applications for appointment of dealers to different retail outlets in Karnataka, including a retail outlet at Kaiwara Cross Road, Chikkaballapur that is reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman). The appellant and the sixth respondent submitted their respective applications with documents for allotment of the said retail outlet at Kaiwara Cross Road, Chikkaballapur reserved for Scheduled Tribe 7 (Woman) - for short, 'Retail Outlet'. HPCL, after the prescribed interview on 7.4.2011, prepared a merit panel, and as per that merit panel, one Ms.Nirmala was placed on the top. But, HPCL, as mentioned in its Communication dated 13.5.2011, revised the merit panel and placed the appellant on the top because of certain alleged errors in awarding marks. However, the sixth respondent lodged a complaint with HPCL against the appellant being placed on top in the merit panel, and therefore, HPCL instituted an investigation; and though the investigating officer found no merit in the sixth respondent's complaint, the appropriate committee of the officers of HPCL, by the order dated 1.7.2011, for reasons recorded therein, cancelled the merit panel and ordered re-interview of all the candidates by a three member selection committee.
Accordingly, re-interview was held on 4.10.2011 with the appellant and the sixth respondents as the only participants, and a fresh merit panel was finalised with the sixth respondent being placed on top. But, because during the stipulated post selection scrutiny it was observed that there were totalling errors, HPCL informed the sixth respondent by its communication dated 8 22.11.2011 about the revision in the merit panel with the appellant being shown on the top and called upon the sixth respondent to have her say in this regard.
The sixth respondent, by her communication dated 1.12.2011, lodged a protest with HPCL, which was referred to a Review Committee who, by its order dated 19.12.2012, concluded that the protest by the sixth respondent was not established and that the selection process shall be continued with the empanelment/appointment of the appellant as a dealer of the Retail Outlet according to the procedure. After the order dated 19.12.2012, HPCL issued the subject Letter of Intent dated 15.1.2013 to the appellant under later intimation to the sixth respondent vide Communication dated 12.04.2013. This Letter of Intent dated 15.1.2013 and the Communication dated 12.04.2013 are produced as per Annexure - W & W1 in W.P.No.15445/2014.
The sixth respondent's initial complaint about the appellant's empanelment was on technical grounds such as, that the applicant was not a resident of Kaiwara; that the appellant did not have relevant experience to run a retail fuel dealership as she had never 9 worked in any of the oil companies; and that the appellant was a third-party controlled applicant for dealership. These grounds were examined by the reviewing authority while passing the order dated 19.12.2012. However, on 25.02.2013, the sixth respondent filed objections with the different officers of HPCL stating that she had collected documents after 31.12.2012 which established that the appellant was not entitled for Caste Certificate as a person from the Scheduled Tribe category and that the subjects Letter of Intent dated 15.01.2013 and the subsequent appointment of dealership were issued by HPCL despite these objections.
The sixth respondent impugned the Letter of Intent dated 15.01.2013 issued to the appellant and the intimation issued to her in that regard by HPCL on 12.04.2013 in W.P.No.15445/2014 adverting to the complaint that she had filed with the Additional Director General of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, Bangalore - the fourth respondent - as regards the appellant allegedly obtaining a false Caste Certificate.
The Police Inspector with the Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, Bangalore inquired into the sixth respondent's complaint 10 and reported that the appellant was from 'Boya' Community from the State of Andhra Pradesh but had fraudulently obtained a Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 while stating that she was from 'Nayaka' Community from the State of Karnataka. Thereafter, the fourth respondent referred the sixth respondent's complaint to the third respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura and the District Caste Verification Committee (for short, 'the Committee') constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointment or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') for inquiry and report.
The third respondent, acting upon the said reference by the fourth respondent and the fifth respondent's earlier report dated 24.3.2013, issued notice to the appellant and the sixth respondent and held proceedings culminating in order dated 9.10.2013 verifying the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 issued by the Tahsildar to the appellant. However, the sixth respondent impugned third respondent's order dated 9.10.2013 and the Caste Certificate dated 11 24.3.2008 before the second respondent, the appellate authority constituted under the provisions of Section 4-D of the Act.
The second respondent, while answering the questions whether the appellant was a permanent resident of Karnataka State and whether the appellant had placed substantial material to prove that she belongs to 'Nayaka' community (which is notified as a Schedule Tribe in the State of Karnataka), concluded, inter alia, that the appellant was not a permanent resident of Arasapur Village, Koratagere, Tumakuru District, Karnataka and that the appellant was not entitled for Caste Certificate as a person from 'Nayaka' community. Therefore, the second respondent, by its order dated 28.10.2015, allowed the sixth respondent's appeal and set aside the third respondent's order dated 9.10.2013 and the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 issued to the appellant.
The appellant impugned the second respondent's order dated 28.10.2015 in W.P.No.10120/2016 contending, inter alia, that the second respondent had not considered that the appellant's paternal grandparents had only migrated from the State of Karnataka to the State of Andhra Pradesh in search of livelihood but they continued to 12 own immovable properties in the State of Karnataka; that the different documents submitted by the appellant established that the appellant was born in Karnataka; that the appellant's grandparents and parents were permanent residents of Karnataka; that the appellant's ancestors were recognized as hailing from 'Nayaka' Community; that the appellant's husband was also from 'Nayaka' Community; and that the documents produced by the appellant also established that even the appellant's mother is from 'Nayaka' Community and therefore, the Appellate Authority (the second respondent) had acted arbitrarily in setting aside the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 and the third respondent's order dated 9.10.2013.
The Writ Court, by the two separate orders dated 11.12.2017 impugned in these two intra-court appeals, has disposed of W.P.No.10120/2016 as being devoid of merits thereby affirming the order of the second respondent setting aside both the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 and the third respondent's order dated 9.10.2013. Consequentially, the Writ Court has also disposed of W.P.No. No.15445/2014 quashing the Letter of Intent dated 13 15.01.2013 (Annexure - W) issued to the appellant by HPCL and the HPCL's Communication dated 12.4.2013 (Annexure - W1) to the sixth respondent's while directing HPCL to reconsider 'the other applicants' in the order of merit for allotment of the dealership to the Retail Outlet after excluding the appellant from the selection process and to complete such exercise within a period of two months from the date of order with a further direction to maintain status quo until the fresh allotment of dealership of the Retail Outlet.
The appellant, who has impugned the separate orders dated 11.12.2017 passed in W.P.No.10120/2016 and W.P.No.15445/2014 respectively in these intra court appeals, has filed an application (IA No. 5/2018) under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for production of additional documents and another application (IA No. 6/2018) under Order XLI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Rule 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules seeking permission to plead additional grounds in W.A.311/2018.
14
In these appeals, the impugned orders are essentially assailed on the assertions, including the additional grounds urged in IA No.6/2018 in W.A.311/2018, that:
(i) the appellant's paternal grandparents, and her maternal family members, are from 'Nayaka' community (admittedly a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Karnataka) from the State of Karnataka and her elders viz. paternal grandparents migrated to the State of Andhra Pradesh from the State of Karnataka when her father was a minor, and therefore, the appellant, who is a permanent resident of the State of Karnataka and from 'Nayaka' Community, is entitled to reservation in Karnataka as a Scheduled Tribe person in terms of the proposition in Communication/s dated 2.5.1975 and 22.3.1977 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India which is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another v.
Union of India and others1 (for short, ' Action Committee case'); 1 (1994) 5 SCC 244 15
(ii) the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 issued to the appellant by the fifth respondent is in the prescribed Form in terms of the Official Memorandum dated 24.4.1990 issued by the Government of India for the purposes of availing a concession under the Union of India, and as such, the permissibility or genuineness of such Certificate could not have been examined under the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointment or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1994 ('the Act') and Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointment or Posts in the Services under the State) Rules, 1992 ('the Rules'), but should have been verified in terms of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others2 (for short, Madhuri Patil's case); and alternatively, in the event it is held that provisions of the Act/Rules would apply to the present case, the sixth respondent had to file an appeal under Section 4-B of the Act before the Prescribed Authority and she could not have approached 2 (1994) 6 SCC 241 16 the Additional Director General of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate - the fourth respondent, and further, at the instance of the fourth respondent, no proceedings could have been initiated under the Act/Rules;
(iii) the impugned order dated 11.12.2017 with the directions to HPCL in W.P.No.15445/2014 being consequential to the impugned order dated 11.12.2017 in W.P.No.10120/2016; and if the impugned order dated 11.12.2017 in W.P.No.10120/2016 is impermissible in law, then the impugned order dated 11.12.2017 with the directions to HPCL in W.P.No.15445/2014 is also liable to be set-aside.
As regards the first of the grounds, it is asserted that the appellant's paternal grandparents originally are from Kallipalya Village in Holavanahalli Hobli, Kortagere Taluk, Tumakuru District, Karnataka and they migrated to Hindupur District in the State of Andhra Pradesh in search of livelihood when the appellant's father was aged 8 years, and therefore, it is essential that the challenge to the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 issued to the appellant be tested qua the appellant's elders' permanent place of residence as 17 of the date of the applicable Presidential Order and whether they belonged to 'Nayaka' Community; and only because the appellant's elders had migrated to the State of Andhra Pradesh and in the appellant's/ her father's school records (both of which are issued by Schools in Andhra Pradesh), their caste is mentioned either as 'Valmiki' or 'Boya' (nomenclatures which are used in certain parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh to refer to 'Nayaka' community), it cannot be said that the appellant is not entitled for reservation in Karnataka as a person from the 'Nayaka' Community. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon paragraph 2 of the Enclosure to the Circular dated 2nd May 1975 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, which reads as follows:
"Cases of Migration:
(1) where a person migrates from the portion of the state in respect of which his community is scheduled to another part of the same state in respect of which his community is not scheduled, he will continue to be deemed to be a member of the scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, in relation to the state;
(2) where a person migrates from one state to another, he can claim to belong to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe only in relation to the state to 18 which he originally belonged and not in respect of the state to which he has migrated."
The appellant also places reliance upon the Communication dated 22.03.1977 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Action Committee case. It is the appellant's case that in this Communication dated 22.03.1977, while noting that all persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste/ Tribe, but residing in different States/Union Territories, may not be treated as belonging to Scheduled Caste/Tribe or vice-versa and therefore residence of a particular person in a particular locality assumes significance for the purposes of reservation, it is clarified that the residence cannot be understood in the literal or ordinary sense and should be understood as connoting the permanent residence of a person as on the date of the notification of Presidential Order scheduling his Caste/Tribe in relation to that locality; and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Action Committee's case, while repelling the challenge to the aforementioned proposition in the Communication dated 22.3.1977 on the ground that the terms of this Communication violated 19 constitutional provisions, has reiterated the proposition as stated in the Communication dated 22.03.1977.
It is the appellant's further case that the appellate authority/the second respondent, contrary to the law reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, misdirected itself in deciding on the permissibility of Caste Certificate dated 24.03.2008 issued to the appellant on the questions whether the appellant was a permanent resident of the State of Karnataka and whether the appellant had placed materials to establish that she belonged to 'Nayaka' community; and has erroneously decided these questions against the appellant on the premise that the appellant was asserting equivalence between 'Nayaka' community in the State of Karnataka and 'Boya' and 'Valmiki' community in the State of Andhra Pradesh and that the relevant school records showed that both the appellant's father and appellant as hailing from 'Valmiki'/'Boya' community from the State of Andhra Pradesh.
As regards the second of the submissions that neither the permissibility nor the genuineness of the Caste Certificate dated 20 24.3.2008 could be tested under the provisions of the Act/Rules, reliance is placed upon Section 2(3) of the Act and it is asserted that the provisions of the Act apply only to such of the entities as are listed therein and not when a Caste Certificate is issued by the Jurisdictional Tahsildar in the prescribed Form in terms of the Official Memorandum dated 24.4.1990 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India for the purposes of availing the benefits and concessions under the Union of India, and that the verification of such Certificate issued by such Tahsildar should be verified, and be subject to the challenge, in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil's case. In fact, reliance is placed upon the different directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with emphasis on direction No.11 which reads as follows:
"11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution."21
Further, reliance is also placed on the later decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham and others3 wherein it is declared that the directions issued in Madhuri Patil's case are valid and laudable and that in issuing these directions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was merely filling the vacuum till the legislation chooses to make appropriate law. It is asserted on behalf of the appellant that because the Union of India has not made any law in this regard even as of this date, the only recourse available for verification of the Caste Certificate dated 24.03.2008 was the procedure in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil's case with remedies to the appellant as provided for in those directions. But, in the case on hand, the District Verification Committee/the third respondent has initiated verification of the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 at the instance of the fourth respondent on the complaint by the sixth respondent which is impermissible under the Act/ Rules, and the appellate authority's/the second respondent's order emanating from such impermissible procedure would also be without jurisdiction. 3 (2012) 1 SCC Page 333 22 It is seen that appellate authority has tested the permissibility of the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 issued to the appellant with reference to the question as to whether the appellant is able to produce documents to show that she is a permanent resident of the State of Karnataka while it appears, from the Enclosure to the Circular dated 02.05.1975/Communication and 22.3.1977 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Action Committee's case, that the permissibility of the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 issued to the appellant, who claims that her grandparents migrated from the State of Karnataka to the State of Andhra Pradesh when her father was a minor, may have to be decided with reference to the appellant's elders' permanent residence at the time of the Presidential Order listing the 'Nayaka' community as a Scheduled Tribe in Karnataka; and incidentally, because the 'Nayaka' community is listed as a Scheduled Tribe in Karnataka in the year 1991, such question may also have to be decided with reference to the Ratio of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 23 Jayanna vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Others4 Further, for the first time before this Court it is urged that the provisions of the Act, and the Rules framed thereunder, could not have been invoked to test the permissibility of the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, the fifth respondent, in the Form prescribed by the Government of India vide its Official Memorandum dated 24.04.1990, and in the absence of any law by the Union of India regulating issuance of Caste Certificate and Verification thereof, the permissibility, or genuineness, of a Caste Certificate issued by the fifth respondent for the purposes of benefits under Union of India, will have to tested in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kum. Madhuri Patil's case as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the later decision in Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham's case. Although such submissions are urged for the first time in the appeals, but cannot be ignored altogether for the reason that they relate to the very jurisdiction of 4 2013 (1) Kar.L.J. 177 24 the second respondent to decide on the permissibility of the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008.
Lastly, even the alternative argument that if the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under were to be held to be applicable to the case of present nature, the second respondent's order dated 28.10.2015 would be untenable because the proceedings both before the second and third respondents are in violation of the provisions of the Act, and the Rules - especially the procedure to be followed by the Verifying Authority (the third respondent) and the appellate authority (the second respondent), could also have a vital bearing on the final outcome as regards the challenge to the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008 issued to the appellant.
The respondents, including the sixth respondent, have not been able to refute the aforementioned legal arguments canvassed on behalf of the appellant, and in fact, when this Court specifically queried the counsel for the respondents about their responses to these legal arguments, they could only respond stating that these submissions were being canvassed on behalf of the appellant for the 25 first time before this Court and, therefore, the appellant may not be permitted to raise such contentions.
As observed, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant go to the root of the matter and even relate to the very jurisdiction of the second respondent to deal with the question relating to permissibility of the Caste Certificate dated 24.3.2008. Having regard to the relevance of these contentions and their bearing on the final adjudication, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matters involved in the writ petitions deserve to be restored for reconsideration by the Writ Court.
Therefore, it appears appropriate that these intra court appeals be allowed setting aside the impugned orders dated 11.12.2017 in W.P. No.15445/2014 and W.P. No.10120/2016 and these writ petitions be restored to the file of the Writ Court while requesting the Writ Court to permit the appellant and the respondents to file necessary applications to complete their respective pleadings as regards all the contentions that they could raise in support of their respective cases and to consider those applications/responses thereto, and dispose of the writ petitions 26 afresh. Further, as the appellant has had the advantage of interim order of status quo before the Writ Court and also before this Court, it would only be appropriate and just that the interim order of status quo be continued until the first date of appearance before the Writ Court while leaving it open for the writ Court to consider the question of interim relief, as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, these appeals are allowed to the extent that the impugned Orders dated 11.12.2017 in W.P. No.15445/2014 and in W.P. No.10120/2016 are set aside and these writ petitions are restored for reconsideration of the Writ Court. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Writ Court may permit the appellant and the respondents to file necessary applications to supplement their respective pleadings as regards all the contentions that they could raise in support of their respective cases and shall thereafter consider the matters afresh.
The parties through their respective counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the Writ Court on 18.6.2018; and the interim order of status quo granted by this Court on 9.2.2018 is continued 27 until the date of first hearing of these writ petitions before the Writ Court, subject to and with the observations made hereinbefore.
Thus, these intra Court appeals stand disposed of in the above terms, and the Interim Applications are also consequentially disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE nv