Karnataka High Court
Shivanand And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 6 July, 2022
Author: S. Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S. Vishwajith Shetty
1 W.P.No.201605/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.201605/2022 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
1. Shivanand S/o Laxman Hippargi,
Age: 51 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o S.B.I. Colony, Near Railway Station,
Vijayapura, Tq. & Dist: Vijayapura.
2. Sushmita D/o Shivanand Hippargi,
Age: 16 years, Occ: Student,
R/o S.B.I. Colony Near Railway Station,
Vijayapura, Tq. & Dist: Vijayapura.
3. Vaishnavi D/o Shivanand Hippargi,
Age: 13 years, Occ: Student,
R/o S.B.I. Colony, Near Railway Station,
Vijayapura, Tq. & Dist: Vijayapura.
(The petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors U/G of
father of the petitioner No.1)
... Petitioners
(By Smt. Hema L. Kulakarni &
Sri. Manjunath Ginni, Advocates)
2 W.P.No.201605/2022
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building, Bangalore-560001.
2. The State of Karnataka,
Through Under Secretary-2
Social Welfare Department,
Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore-01.
3. The Tahsildar, Vijayapura,
Tq. & Dist: Vijayapura-586109.
4. The Revenue Inspector,
Tq. & Dist: Vijayapura-586109.
... Respondents
(By Sri. C.Jagadish, Spl. Counsel)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of
certiorari quashing the impugned Circular Vide No.¸ÀPÀE
23 J¸ïJr 2009 dated 06.06.2020 issued by the
respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C; Issue writ of
certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dated
21.06.2022 and 23.06.2022 issued by the respondent
No.3 vide Annexure-F, F1 and F2 and issue writ of
mandamus directing the respondent No.3 Tahsildar to
issue caste certificate in favour of the petitioners as
Schedule Tribe forthwith.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
3 W.P.No.201605/2022
ORDER
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition with a prayer to quash the impugned Circular vide Annexure-C dated 06.06.2020 issued by respondent No.2 and the impugned endorsements dated 21.06.2022 and 23.06.2022 vide Annexures 'F' 'F1' and 'F2' issued by respondent No.3 and further direct the respondent No.3-Tahasildar to issue caste certificate in favour of the petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Counsel Sri C.Jagadish appearing for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute involved in this writ petition is covered by the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.201770/2021 and Writ Petition No.201711/2021 wherein in identical circumstances this Court has quashed the endorsement impugned in the writ petition and has directed the Tahasildar to issue caste certificate in favour of the petitioner therein in accordance with law in the light of 4 W.P.No.201605/2022 the observation made in the order passed in the said writ petition.
4. Learned Special counsel Sri C.Jagadish submits that in the list of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe published by the State Government it is seen in Sl.No.88(h) that it is mentioned as Talawara or Talawara Boya and in the case on hand the petitioners have not made it specific whether they belongs to Talawara or Talawara Boya community and therefore, the Tahasildar while holding an enquiry is required to be directed by this Court to consider this aspect of the matter.
5. From the arguments addressed on both sides, it is clear that in identical circumstances this Court in Writ Petition No.201770/2021 and in Writ Petition No.201711/2021 disposed of on 02.02.2022 has held that the person who belongs to Talawara community are also entitled for the benefits in terms of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation for Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1990 and also for 5 W.P.No.201605/2022 the benefit under Circular No.SWD 180 SAD 2020(P) dated 29.01.2022. This Court while quashing the impugned endorsement has reserved liberty to the Tahasildar to hold an enquiry before issuing the Caste Certificate in favour of petitioner, though the petitioner had claimed that he was already declared as Talawara community and therefore, he was entitled for the caste certificate and more so having regard to the judgment of this Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribunal Development and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 94.
6. Having regard to the specific objection raised by the learned Special Counsel Sri C.Jagadish, during the course of enquiry the Tahasildar is required to take into consideration as to whether the petitioners belonged to Talawara or Talawar Boya community.
7. It is needless to state that the Tahasildar while holding an enquiry pursuant to the order passed in this writ petition shall take into consideration the said objection raised 6 W.P.No.201605/2022 by the Special Counsel and thereafterwards consider the case of the petitioners for issuance of caste certificates in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.201770/2021 and in Writ Petition No.201711/2021 and consequently the impugned endorsements dated 21.06.2022 and 23.06.2022 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexures 'F' 'F1' and 'F2' are quashed and Tahasildar shall issue caste certificates in favour of petitioners in accordance with law and in the light of observation made herein above.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt CT-SMP