Karnataka High Court
Pradip S/O Laxman Naganur And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION No.201698/2021 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
1. PRADIP S/O LAXMAN NAGANUR
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. SUSHMA W/O PRADIP
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
3. LAXMAN S/O PRADIP NAGANUR
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
4. SHRILAXMI D/O PRADIP NAGANUR
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
5. VAISHNAVI D/O PRADIP NAGANUR
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
PETITIONER NOS.3 TO 5 ARE MINORS
UNDER GUARDIAN OF FATHER
PETITIONER NO.1
ALL ARE R/O RENUKA NIVAS
BAGALKOT ROAD, BEHIND SP
BANGLOW, VIJAYAPURA,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. HEMA L. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
2
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-586101.
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C. JAGADISH,
SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R2 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED
WITH V/O DATED 23.09.2021)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR VIDE NO.¸ÀPE
À 23 J¸ïJr 2009
DATED 06.06.2020 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
Though this writ petition is listed for Preliminary
Hearing, by the consent of the parties, it is taken up for
final disposal.
2. Heard Smt. Hema L. Kulkarni, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Sri C. Jagadish, learned Special
Counsel appearing for respondents-State.
3. Petitioners have challenged the Circular dated
06.06.2020 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-C)
stating that respondent No.2, while issuing impugned
Circular at Annexure-C, interpreted the amendment to the
Constitution at Annexure-A by saying that the benefits of
the Scheduled Tribes may be extended to Naikda, Nayaka,
Cholival Nayaka, Kapadia Nayaka, Mota Nayaka, Nana
Nayaka, Naik, Nayak, Beda, Bedar, Valmiki and Talawara
and Parivara of same caste. However, amendment to the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950, has added
Parivara and Talawara in Column No.38 along with Naik
Naikda. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have
submitted that injustice has been caused to the petitioners
who belong to Talawara community.
4. Sri C. Jagadish, learned Special Counsel
appearing for respondents-State contended that there is
no impediment for accepting Talawara as a caste in the
Scheduled Tribes. He also submits that new Circular has
been issued by the Government on 29.01.2022 extending
the benefit to the Talawara community also. However, he
contended that the case of the petitioners has to be
considered in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another
vs. Addl., Commissioner, Tribal Development and
others reported in AIR 1995 SC 94.
5. Refuting the contention of the learned counsel
for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners have already been declared
as they belong to Talawara community and therefore,
there is no necessity to redo the said exercise by the
authorities. Accordingly, she submitted that the writ
petition be allowed.
6. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of
the writ papers, the same would indicate that the
petitioners belong to Talawara community and are entitled
for the benefits in terms of the Karnataka SC/ST & Other
BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990. In
addition to this, as rightly contended by Sri C.Jagadish
learned Special Counsel for the respondents, Circular dated
29.01.2022 is issued by the Government amending The
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act,
2020, wherein Talawara community is also included in the
said Amendment Act, 2020.
7. In that view of the matter, writ petition is
disposed of. Petitioners are also entitled for the benefit as
is mentioned in Circular No.SWD 180 SAD 2020(P) dated
29.01.2022. Though the learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already
been declared as they belong to Talawara Community, it is
open for the respondent-State to consider the case of the
petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case supra. In view of
new Circular dated 29.01.2022, the impugned
endorsements issued by the second respondent is quashed
and as such, respondent No.3/Tahsildar shall issue caste
certificate in favour of the petitioners in accordance with
law and in the light of the observations made above.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
