Karnataka High Court
Siddhaling 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.201699/2021 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SIDDHALING
S/O DHARMARAO PUJARI
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O PLOT NO.122, WARD NO.10
ATHANI ROAD NEAR RELIANCE TOWER
BHAVANI NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. HEMA L. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
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
2
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:-
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 petitioner and Sri C. Jagadish, learned Special
Counsel appearing for respondents-State.
3. Petitioner has 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 petitioner has
submitted that injustice has been caused to the petitioner
who belongs 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 petitioner 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 petitioner
submitted that the petitioner has already been declared as
he belongs 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
petitioner belongs to Talawara community and is 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. Petitioner is 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 petitioner
submitted that the petitioner has already been declared as
he belongs to Talawara Community, it is open for the
respondent-State to consider the case of the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law and in the
light of the observations made above.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
