Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mohan Kumar S/O Veeresh Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 August, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 KARNATAKA 183, AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1602
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.111482 of 2017 (GM-CC)
Between:
Shri Mohan Kumar S/o. Veeresh Kumar N Mathad,
Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.: House No.9, Basaveshwar Gudi,
Ward No.3, Bandari, Tq.: Sandur,
Dist.: Ballari - 583 124.
... Petitioner
(By Shri S.R. Hegde, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Tribal Welfare/Backward Class,
SC/ST and other Backward Classes,
Vidhanasoudha, Bengaluru-01.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Dist.: Ballari-583 101.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Dist.: Ballari - 583 101.
4. The Tahashildar,
Tq.: Sandur, Dist.: Ballari-583124.
... Respondents
(By Shri C.Jagadish, Spl. Counsel for R1;
Ms.Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP for R2 to R3)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by
:2:
respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, Ballari, bearing his
order No.SAKALA/CASTE CERTIFICATE/19/2017-18, dated NIL-
09.2017, confirming the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Ballari, vide Annexure-F to the writ petition.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a certiorari to quash the order passed by respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari bearing No.Sakala/ Caste Certificate/ 19/ 2017-18, dated Nil- 09-2017 confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari, vide Annexure-F to the writ petition and consequently for a mandamus directing the respondents to issue caste certificate after verifying all the records produced by the petitioner before this authority concerned.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the resident of Bandri Village of Sandur Taluk and claims to belong to Beda Jangama community and as such applied to get the certificate from respondent No.4, which application however was rejected by respondent No.4. :3: Along with the said application, the petitioner had produced Election Identity Card, Adhar Card and School leaving certificate, where the caste of the petitioner is shown as Jangama and on this basis he claims that Jangama and Beda Jangama being one and the same. i.e., synonymous, the petitioner ought to have been given a caste certificate of Beda Jangama being a Schedule Caste.
3. Shri S.R. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the rejection could not have been done merely on the basis of the documents furnished by the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have conducted an enquiry, spot inspection and thereafter disposed of the application filed by the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has also produced Annexure-C1, being statement of villagers, where he is residing and Annexures-D1 and D2, being the certificates issued by Mandal Panchayat and Akhil Bharata Mula Jangama, Beda Jangam, Bedagu Jangama Samaja Samsthe, dated 16.04.1993, :4: wherein the petitioner claims that the villagers in the village where the petitioner is residing has stated that petitioner belongs to Jangama Community and therefore, it ought to have been considered. He relies on the statement made by the villagers stating that the petitioner has been following and performing the rituals as that of a person belonging to the Jangama community. He is a vegetarian and the people in the village address him and his family members as Jangama, Swami, Aiyya etc., this aspect having not been considered by respondent No.4 and subsequently by respondent No.2. Shri S.R. Hegde, learned counsel would submits that the procedure which has been followed by the said authority are not in accordance with law and therefore, rejection of the application filed by the petitioner is required to be quashed.
4. Per contra, Shri C.Jagadish, learned special counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would contend that the documents which are now relied upon by the :5: petitioner are all got up documents with the sole purpose of trying to seek for and obtain a caste certificate as belonging to Schedule Caste person without the petitioner being such a person. In fact, the undisputed document which is required to be considered was the school leaving certificate, which was produced by the petitioner along with the application, where the petitioner is shown as Jangama and under the column where a question has been posed as regards whether the petitioner belongs to SC/ST community, there is no particular entry made and as such, Shri C.Jagadish, learned special counsel would contend that this document being one that belongs to the petitioner himself would have to be taken on the face value, which would indicate that the petitioner does not belong to Beda Jangama community. Even otherwise, Shri C.Jagadish, learned special counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the petitioner has not produced any document and/or established any disadvantage, which is caused to the :6: petitioner. In fact, the documents produced by the petitioner himself would establish that the petitioner has been treated with all respect by villagers in the village that he belongs to where they have been addressing the petitioner as Swamy, Aiyya, Jangama etc., which would indicate that the villagers have treated the petitioner with respect and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have suffered from any disadvantage so as to claim the benefit, which would be derived from a receipt of certificate showing that the petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste. In this regard, he places reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
(i) Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah vs.
Ramachandra Veerappa and another
reported in (1996) 4 SCC 431, wherein at paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 6, it is held as under:
"3. It is seen that under Article 341(1) of the Constitution, the Presidential Notification is conclusive subject to the amendment under clause (2) of Article 341. In 1976, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act had been made. Admittedly, under item No. 19, in relation to the State of Karnataka, Beda Jangamma or Budaga Jangamma are declared as Scheduled Castes. As a fact, the finding :7: 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 with synonymous names of castes claimed by the party is conformable to the names specified in the Presidential Notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution.
4. The finding recorded by the High Court after exhaustive consideration of evidence including the judgment of the civil Court on which strong reliance was placed, is that the appellant is a Veerashiva Lingayath Jangamma and that, therefore, he cannot be considered to be a Beda Jangamma or Budaga Jangamma. It is true that the appellant has placed reliance on the Census Report prepared by the Census Department of the State of Karnataka and also the Notification issued by the Legislative Department. That evidence also was considered and for valid and diverse reasons, with which we agree, the same was rightly rejected.
5. XXXXX
6. Thus considered, we hold that there is no warrant for finding that the appellant belongs to a Scheduled Caste entitling him to contest the election as Scheduled Caste candidate.":8:
(ii) Anjan Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.
Reported in AIR 2006SC 1177, wherein at paragraph Nos.14 and 15, it is held as under:
"14. In view of the catena of decisions of this Court, the questions raised before us are no more res integra. The condition precedent for granting tribe certificate being that one must suffer disabilities wherefrom one belongs. The offshoots of the wedlock of a tribal woman married to a non-tribal husband - Forward Class (Kayastha in the present case) cannot claim Scheduled Tribe status. The reason being such offshoot was brought up in the atmosphere of Forward Class and he is not subjected to any disability. A person not belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes claiming himself to be a member of such caste by procuring a bogus caste certificate is a fraud under the Constitution of India. The impact of procuring fake/bogus caste certificate and obtaining appointment/admission from the reserved quota will have far-reaching grave consequences. The meritorious reserved candidate may be deprived of reserved category for whom the post is reserved. The reserved post will go into the hands of non- deserving candidate and in such cases it would be violative of the mandate of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
15. The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Certificate is not a bounty to be distributed. To 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 :9: educationally before such certificate is issued. Any concerned authority issuing such certificates in a routine manner would be committing the dereliction of Constitutional duty."
5. In the above background, he would submit that the decision of respondent No.4 subsequently confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter by respondent No2-the Deputy Commissioner are proper and valid, it cannot be faulted with and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Ms. Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.2 to 4 would also support the arguments advanced by Shri C.Jagadish, learned special counsel for respondent No.1 and further submits that the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 are proper and valid and the petition ought to be dismissed.
7. Heard Shri S.R. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri C.Jagadish, learned special counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms. Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the papers. : 10 :
8. One of the contention of Shri S.R. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from the school leaving certificate, the other documents produced by the petitioner ought to have been taken into consideration. The examination of the Election Identity Card and Adhar Card would indicate that there is no mention of a caste. Hence, those documents which have been produced by the petitioner would not in any manner support the case of the petitioner.
9. The other document being the statement of the villagers would also indicate that the said villagers have made a statement as regards the rituals which have been followed by the petitioner and his family, about the diksha taken by the petitioner and his family and about the petitioner being addressing as Swamy, Aiyya, Jangama etc., and as such the said villagers have only stated that the petitioner belongs to Jangama Community. But however adverting to the application made by the petitioner, they state that the said application ought to be considered and the : 11 : petitioner be given a certificate stating that the petitioner belongs to Beda Jangama community.
10. The certificate issued by Mandal Panchayat and Akhil Bharata Mula Jangama, Beda Jangam, Bedagu Jangama Samaja Samsthe are self serving certificates, which baldly state that the petitioner belongs to Beda Jangama community and the said certificate in the absence of corroborative evidence cannot be taken at the face value, therefore, reading the certification of the petitioner as that belonging to the Beda Jangama community.
11. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah (supra) that the applicant has to establish in no uncertain terms that he belongs to a particular community so as to be conferred with a certificate, which would provide certain entitlement to the holder of the certificate.
12. Merely because the caste Jangama and Beda Jangama are synonymous, the petitioner without establishing : 12 : that he belongs to Beda Jangama community cannot seek for such certificate. The school leaving certificate, which has been produced by the petitioner himself would indicate that the petitioner belongs to Jangama community and even this certificate there is no entry made in the column referencing to the fact whether the petitioner belongs to SC/ST, this document being one that has been issued at an undisputed point of time and one which has been issued at the instance of the petitioner and/or his family members cannot be sought to be overridden by self serving statements made by the villagers and/or the certificates issued by the organization, which are not so recognized.
13. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner has taken into consideration all the relevant factors and the orders passed by respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-F, dated NIL-09-2017 is proper and valid and there are no grounds which are made out by the petitioner for : 13 : interference with the said order and as such the petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE Vnp*