Karnataka High Court

Sri.Ravindra Swamy S/O Kallayya ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 25 February, 2022

Bench: E.S.Indiresh

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

        WRIT PETITION NO.200002 OF 2020 (GM-CC)

BETWEEN:

SRI RAVINDRA SWAMY
S/O KALLAYYA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/O H.NO.8-11-254
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
BIDAR-585401.
                                               ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GANGADHAR GURUMATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
 FOR SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
       DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
       MS BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR
       BENGALURU-560001.

2.     THE COMMISSIONER
       DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
       5TH FLOOR, MS BUILDING
       DR. AMBEDKAR VIDHI
       BENGALURU-560001.

3.     THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
       NO.8, 1ST FLOOR,
       KSCMF BUILDING (ANNEXED),
       CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
       BENGALURU-560001.
                                 2




4.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     AND THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER,
     BIDAR DISTRICT,
     DC OFFICE,
     BIDAR-585401.

5.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     BIDAR, DC OFFICE,
     BIDAR-585401.

6.   THE TAHSILDAR
     BIDAR TALUKA,
     BIDAR-585401.
                                                 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI C. JAGADISH, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R1, 2 4 TO 6;
 SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Y.ARUNDATI,
 ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT AS R7)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED
18.12.2019 IN FILE NO.CASTE VERIFYING/23/2019-20 AS AT
ANNEXURE-X, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AS
ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BEYOND
THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF LAW.

     IN THIS PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD, COMING ON
FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-
                          ORDER

Petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the Notice dated

18.12.2019 (Annexure-S) issued by the fourth respondent

herein.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner claims that petitioner

belongs to Beda Jangama caste and he is a permanent resident

of Bidar. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner

hails from Halahalli village, Aurad Taluk, Bidar District and he

shifted to Bidar about 45 years ago and they have been

identified as Beda Jangama, Jangama, Swami and Ayygolu,

within the vicinity of Bidar District and they have been treated as

religious priests of Lingayat community. It is further averred in

the writ petition that Government of India vide Gazette

Notification dated 11.08.1950 published the list of castes to be

treated as Schedule Caste and has declared the community of

the petitioner i.e., Beda Jangama as "Schedule Caste" at Part-10

pertaining to Hyderabad region at Sl.No.4 and pursuant to the

Gazette Notification dated 29.10.1956, Beda Jangama caste has

been declared as Scheduled Caste in Part-I pertaining to Andhra

Pradesh region. It is further stated that in the erstwhile Mysore

State, caste of Beda Jangama has been identified as Schedule

Caste in the Gazette published in 29.10.1956 (Annexures-A and

B). It is further pleaded in the writ petition that, pursuant to the

amendment to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Orders

(Amendment) Act, 1976, the Central Government has issued

notification dated 27.07.1977 describing the "Beda Jangama" as

Schedule Caste (Annexure-C). It is further pleaded in the writ

petition that the petitioner has made a representation to the

Deputy Commissioner Bidar, seeking caste certificate for the

purpose of contesting in the election and pursuant to the

direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Taluk Social

Welfare Officer, Aurad conducted spot inspection and reported to

the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-D and E with regard

to existence of Beda Jangama community in Aurad Taluk. The

petitioner has furnished all the relevant documents to the

respondent authorities for issuance of caste certificate. The

Tahsildar, has directed the concerned Revenue Inspector and

Village Accountant to hold an enquiry with regard to the caste of

the petitioner. Pursuant to same, they have conducted spot

inspection and filed report dated 07.05.2016 (Annexure-G)

identifying the customs and rituals of the family of the petitioner

as similar to Beda Jangama. It is the grievance of the petitioner

that without considering the same, sixth respondent has passed

an order dated 20.05.2016, rejecting the claim made by the

petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has

preferred appeal under Section 4-B of the Karnataka Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes

(Reservation of Appointment etc.,) (Amendment) Act, 2011

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the fifth respondent-

Assistant Commissioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner

that the ancestors of the petitioner were belonging to caste of

Beda Jangama, Jangama, Swamy and Ayygolu and his maternal

uncle had obtained caste certificate as Beda Jangama. The fifth

respondent, by order dated 08.05.2017, dismissed the appeal

preferred by the petitioner and as such, confirmed the order

passed by the sixth respondent. Being aggrieved by the same,

petitioner preferred revision petition under Section 4-F of the Act

before the fourth respondent and the said petition came to be

allowed by the fourth respondent, by order dated 15.05.2017

and further the sixth respondent was directed to issue caste

certificate to the petitioner as the petitioner is belonging to Beda

Jangama caste after conducting enquiry. In the said

proceedings, fourth respondent has directed the Village

Accountant and Revenue Inspector to submit a report by holding

a panchanama and pursuant to the same, report has been filed

by the respective authorities as per Annexures-M and N. It is

also stated that the Government had taken a decision to

consider the applications made by persons seeking issuance of

caste certificate as "Beda Jangama" and pursuant to the same,

the sixth respondent reported to the fourth respondent that the

petitioner does not belong to the Beda Jangama caste and being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed Writ Petitions

No.201303-04/2018 before this Court and this Court, by order

dated 21.01.2019, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the

order passed by the sixth respondent- Tahsildar, by remanding

the matter with an observation to reconsider the claim of the

petitioner, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, taking

into consideration the report filed by the Village Accountant as

Revenue Inspector. Pursuant to the direction issued by this

Court, the sixth respondent passed the order dated 01.04.2019

rejecting the claim made by the petitioner that the petitioner

belong to Beda Jangama (Schedule Caste) and being aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court in Writ

Petition No.202022/2019 and this Court, by order dated

17.06.2019, remitted the matter to the sixth respondent-

Tahsildar to reconsider the claim made by the petitioner vide

Annexure-U in terms of the order passed in the earlier writ

petition. Thereafter, the sixth respondent considering the

direction issued by this Court, conducted an enquiry and has

passed the order dated 23.08.2019 declaring that the petitioner

is belong to Beda Jangama Caste (Annexure-V) and accordingly,

issued caste certificate as per Annexure-W. It is the case of the

petitioner that the respondent-authorities, after conducting

enquiry and following the directions issued by this Court in the

writ petitions referred to above, has issued the caste certificate

as per Annexure-W. In the meanwhile, Karnataka Rajya Dalit

Sangharsha Samiti (R), Bidar, has approached the fourth

respondent-Deputy Commissioner, challenging the caste

certificate issued by the sixth respondent to the petitioner,

consequently, the fourth respondent has issued impugned notice

dated 18.12.2019, directing the petitioner to appear before the

fourth respondent on 23.12.2019 and being aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present

writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri Gangadhar Gurumath, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri C. Jagadish, learned Special Counsel for the

respondent-State and Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior

Counsel for Smt. Y. Arundati, learned counsel for impleading

applicant.

4. Sri Gangadhar Gurumath, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that pursuant to the direction issued by the

fourth respondent, jurisdictional Village Accountant and Revenue

Inspector had conducted enquiry and drawn panchanama by

stating that the petitioner belong to Beda Jangama caste and the

said aspect has been accepted by the sixth respondent, based on

the direction issued by this Court in the aforementioned two writ

petitions and therefore, challenging on the very same ground, at

the instance of the complainant (impleading respondent No.7)

and thereby issuing notice by the fourth respondent to the

petitioner, is illegal. He further contended that enquiry was

conducted pursuant to the direction issued by this Court and

therefore, issuing notice in a settled matter is not correct and

therefore, he contended that the impugned notice requires to be

set aside by this Court as the same would cause hardship to the

petitioner. To substantiate his arguments, Sri Gangadhar

Gurumath, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of PRABHUDEV MALLIKARJUNNAIAH v.

RAMACHANDRA VEERAPPA AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1996

SC 1962. In order to buttress his argument on the jurisdiction

of fourth respondent under Section 4-F of the Act, learned Senior

counsel invited the attention of the Court to the law declared by

this Court in the case of SRI CHIKKANNA v. DISTRICT SOCIAL

WELFARE OFFICER AND ANOTHER in W.P.No.13173/2008

decided on 23.01.2009; in the case of SIDDARAJU v. STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.14201/2018 dated

23.08.2019; and in the case of SMT. SANGEETA v. DEPUTY

COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS in W.P.No.36482/2019 dated

20.08.2019. Sri Gangadhar Gurumath, learned Senior Counsel

having relied upon the aforementioned judgments, argued that

the fourth respondent has no jurisdiction to issue Notice to the

petitioner herein under Section 4-F of the Act, accordingly

sought for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, Sri C. Jagadish, learned Special counsel

appearing for the respondent-State argued that the petitioner

has challenged the impugned notice and therefore, the writ

petition is premature and thereby, he submitted that the

petitioner be directed to approach the fourth respondent for

redressal of his grievance. He further contended that the

petitioner and his family members belong to Lingayat community

and not Beda Jangama, as contended in the writ petition, and

the said aspect has to be determined by the fourth respondent

and therefore, he submitted that there is no hindrance for the

petitioner to appear before the fourth respondent in the

proceedings and accordingly sought for dismissal of the writ

petition. In this regard, Sri C. Jagadish, learned special counsel

places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Election Petition

No.3 of 1991 disposed of on 27.10.1994 and submitted that

Jangamas are the priestly caste having high social status of

Veerashaiva and therefore, the Jangamas are not scheduled

castes and they belong to Lingayat Community. He further

submitted that the judgment of this Court in the above Election

Petition is confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Prabhudev Mallikarjunnaiah's case referred supra. He also

referred to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of BHARATI REDDY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

reported in (2018)6 SCC 162 and submitted that the enquiry has

to be conducted to determine the genuineness of the caste

certificate issued by the sixth respondent. He also relied upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

DHANANJAYA REDDY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in

(2001)4 SCC 9 and submitted that, if the law requires a thing to

be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same

manner and the authorities must exercise the power in the

manner provided by the statute.

6. Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of Smt. Y. Arundati, learned counsel for

impleading applicant, contended that the impleading applicant is

the complainant before the fourth respondent and belong to

scheduled caste community and he is a State Organising

Convenor of Karnataka State Dalit Sangharsha Samiti (R), Bidar.

She further submitted that the impleading applicant is fighting

for the cause of under-privileged vulnerable section of society. It

is the submission of learned Senior counsel that the petitioner

belongs to Lingayat Community, however, suppressing the said

fact, secured the caste certificate as Beda Jangama and

therefore, the impleading applicant has to be heard in the

matter.

7. In the background of these facts, the core questions

to be answered in this writ petition, are:

i. Whether the impugned notice be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

ii. Whether the impleading applicant is required to be heard in the matter?

8. It is evident from the Gazette notification dated

29.10.1956 (Annexure-B) that at the time of reorganisation of

States, in the Districts of Kalaburagi, Bidar and Raichur of the

then Mysore State, "Beda (Budga) Jangama" has been identified

as Schedule Caste. In order to discern the truth relating to the

caste of the petitioner, the Village Accountant and Revenue

Inspector of Bidar Taluk submitted a report dated 10.04.2018

(Annexure-N). I have carefully considered the report made by

the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector which would

disclose the fact that the ancestors of the petitioner were

following the tenets and rituals of Beda Jangama and belong to

Beda Jangama Caste, however, the said aspect has been

doubted by the respondent authorities and same was challenged

in W.P.Nos.201303-04/2018 and this Court, by order dated

21.01.2019, at paragraph-13 observed as follows:

"It is also not in dispute that, on the basis of application made by the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate for the purpose of election, the respondent No.6-Tahasildar by an order dated 05.04.2018 directed the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector of Bidar North to submit a report by holding a panchanama within three days. The said authorities after holding panchanama drawn on 10.04.2018 submitted a joint report to the respondent No.6-Tahasildar on 13.04.2018 and specifically observed the nature and characteristics of the caste of the petitioner and submitted a comparative report and opined the characteristics of caste of the

petitioner resembled the caste Beda Jangama. The said material documents are issued by the authorities during the course of official correspondence, has been ignored by the Tahasildar while passing the impugned order. The Tahasildar being Taluka Magistrate is bounden duty to hold proper enquiry and consider the documents already produced along with application of the petitioner and pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. The same has not been done."

(emphasis supplied)

In the said judgment, at paragraph-15, it is observed thus:

"In view of the above, the writ petition No.201303/2018 is allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.6-The Tahasildar and Taluka Election Officer, Bidar Taluka, Bidar, as per Annexure-R dated 13.04.2018 made in ElE/CR/01/2018 dated 13.04.2018 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.6-Tahasildar to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of observations made above and in the light of documents relied upon and issued by the authorities and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

(emphasis supplied)

9. Thereafter, the sixth respondent passed order dated

01.04.2018 as per Annexure-T, rejecting the claim of the

petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was

constrained to file W.P.No.202022/2019 before this Court and

this Court, by order dated 17.06.2019, while remanding the

matter to the Tahsildar for consideration afresh, at paragraphs

4, 5 and 6 of the judgment, observed as follows:

"4. I have carefully perused the above said decision. It does not say in that particular manner. At paragraph-10 of the said judgment, it is clearly clarified that the question whether a person belonged to particular caste which finds place in the order containing Schedule Caste list or lists of the Schedule Case persons, is a different question that has to be examined in the light of the materials on record as well as the orders issued by the President of India. The Court has also observed that the entire jangamas may not be schedule castes but there may be jangamas such as Beda Jangama, Budga Jangama or those specifically mentioned in the Schedule Caste Order under item No.19 of the Order issued by the President of India or as amended by the Parliament.

Even if they belong Lingayat or Lingayat cult or the like, they may be said to be coming within the Schedule Caste List. This particular aspect has to be examined by the Tahsildar only after going through the reports submitted before him. It is seen from the impugned order that Tahsildar has only referred to two reports both are dated 05.08.2016. Those joint reports are by the Deputy

Director of Social Welfare Department, Bidar and Revenue Inspector and also District Backward Classes Welfare Officer and the then Tahsildar. But, in the order passed by this Court dated 21.01.2019 at paragraph-13 there is reference to the reports submitted by the Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant by holding panchanama and the same was submitted to the Tahsildar on 13.04.2018. There is absolutely no reference to the contents of said report dated 13.04.2018 in the impugned order. He has only referred to the reports dated 05.08.2016 with reference to procedure of cremation of various other schedule caste people and by culling out the difference between the cremation method of petitioner and other schedule caste people. Though he has considered other documents on record, he has not considered the latest report dated 13.04.2018. This Court, in fact, at paragraph-13 has mainly observed with regard to the nature and characteristics of the caste of the petitioner and also comparative report and opinions given by Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector of Bidar. The Tahsildar has actually not culled out in his order what are the documents ought to have been submitted by the petitioner before the writ Court. It goes without saying that the Tahsildar has been represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate in the previous writ petitions and after hearing indetail the said order was passed. The Tahsildar could not have said that the petitioner could have produced so many documents before the writ Court when he was given an opportunity

before the Court to submit before the Court, what are those documents actually he require for the purpose of considering the representation of the petitioner.

Therefore, the said observations made by the Tahsildar was unnecessary and virtually amounts to commenting on the order passed by this Court. The Tahsildar should know his limits. He has not challenged the said order passed by this Court by way of writ appeal. If really the order passed by this Court was incomplete and without any basis, he would have questioned the same by way of proper writ appeal before this Court. Instead, he comments on the said order which was unwarranted. If the same thing is repeated, the Court will take serious view on that aspect.

5. Be that as it may. The Tahsildar who is bound to follow the directions of this Court as per paragraphs-12 and 13 of the order dated 21.01.2019 passed in W.P.Nos.201303-304/2018, virtually he has not even referred in his order to the report dated 10.04.2018 which was reached to the Tahsildar on 13.04.2018. As to what the said report says and how the Tahsildar is not agreeable with those reports and panchanama is nowhere stated, on the other hand, relying upon the previous reports, the Tahsildar has passed the impugned order. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is just and necessary to remand the matter again to the Tahsildar for conducting fresh enquiry into the matter strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in

paragraphs-12 and 13 of the order dated 21.01.2019 passed in W.P.Nos.201303-304/2018 as noted above.

6. Under the above said circumstances, the impugned order dated 01.04.2019 passed by respondent No.6-Tahsildar as per Annexure-X is hereby quashed. The matter once again stands remitted to respondent No.6-Tahsildar with the similar direction that the Tahsildar has to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made in the earlier writ petitions and also in this writ petition and dispose of the said representation of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

(emphasis supplied)

10. In the light of the direction issued by this Court in

the aforementioned writ petitions, it is pertinent to see the

finding recorded by the Revenue Inspector, Bidar North vide

letter dated 10.04.2018 extracted as follows:

"3) ¸ÀzjÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÁ ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, OgÁzÀ (©) ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.11.2013 gÀAzÀÄ ©ÃzÀgÀ f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼À DzÉÃ±ÀzAÀ vÉ vÁ®ÆPÁ ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¸Áé«Ä ¨ÉÃqÀ dAUÀªÀÄ vÀAzÉ PÀ®Aè iÀiÁå ¸Áé«Ä EªÀgÀ eÁwAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ¸ÀÜ½ÃAiÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ §gÉzÀÄ, ªÀg¢ À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©ÃzÀgÀ f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ°è ¸Àzj À AiÀÄªÀgÀ eÁw ¨ÉÃqÀ dAUÀªÀÄ eÁwAiÀÄªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀg¢ À ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ ªÀg¢ À AiÀÄ ¥Àwæ PÀqvÀ ÀPÉÌ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ.

4) ¸Àzj À CfðzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÉÆÃzÀgÀ ªÀiÁªÀ ²æÃ ¸ÀÄgÉÃAzÀæ vÀAzÉ «ÃgÀÆ¥ÁPÀë ±Á¹Ûç EªÀjUÉÉ ªÀµð À 1978 gÀ°è ¨ÉÃqÀ dAUÀªÀÄ eÁw ¥Àª æ ÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, EzÀgÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀÄ®¸ÀÆgÀÄ «ÄÃ¸À®Ä «zsÁ£À ¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀz æ ° À è ¸Àà¢ð ü ¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀz Û .É ¸Àzj À zÁR¯É ºÁUÀÆ ªÀA±ÁªÀ½ ¥ÀæªiÀ Át ¥ÀvÀæ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ.

5) ¸ÀzÀj CfðzÁgÀgÀ eÁwAiÀÄ ®PÀëtUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV, ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ°è ºÀÄnÖ¤AzÀ-¸ÁAiÀÄÄªÀªÀgÉUÀÆ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ J¯Áè zsÁ«ÄðPÀ «¢ü-«zsÁ£ÀU¼ À À §UÉÎ w½¹zÀÄÝ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ dAUÀªÀÄ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀAZÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀÄÝ, eÁwAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ºÉÃ½zÀ J¯Áè ®PÀt ë UÀ¼ÀÄ qÁ.AiÀÄÄ.¸ÀÆAiÀÄðPÁAvÀ PÁªÀÄvÀ ªÀÄÄRå ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ UÉenÉ AiÀÄgï ¥Àwæ ®UÀwÛ¹zÀÄÝ PÀqvÀ PÀ ÉÌ ®UÀw¹ Û zÉ.

6) PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ILR 1996 KAR 2672 F wÃ¦ð£À°è ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ «ÃgÀ±ÉÊªÀ °AUÁAiÀÄvÀ zsª À ÀÄðzÀ°è EzÀÝgÀÆ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ dAUÀªÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃgÀvPÀ ÀÌª£ À ÉAzÀÄ dAUÀªÀÄjUÉ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwAiÀÄ ¸ÀA«zsÁ¤PÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ JAzÀÄ G¯ÉèÃT¹zÀÄÝ, PÀqÀvPÀ ÉÌ ®UÀw¹ Û zÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ±ÉÃæ µÀ× £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ 1980 JA.J¯ï.eÉ. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀÄl ¸ÀASÉå: 255 gÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À°è «ÃgÀ±ÉÊªÀ °AUÁAiÀÄvÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀÝgÀÆ DvÀ£ÃÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ DAiÀiÁ eÁwUÀ¼À «ÄÃ¸À¯ÁwUÉ CºÀð£ÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£É ºÉÃ½zÉ.

7) ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀPæ ÀnvÀ wÃ¥ÀÄð J.L.Dgï. 1959 J¸ï.¹. 1318 gÀ°£ è À wÃ¦ð£À£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¥ÀÄð (2015)4 J¸ï.¹.¹. 1 EªÀÅUÀ¼À°è CªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ ¨ÁAzsÀªÀgÀ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV CªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ ¨ÁAzsÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ "eÁw UÀÄgÀÄw£À ¥Àª æ ÀiÁt ¥Àv"Àæ UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ Â eÁw ¥Àª æ ÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÄÝ ........ PÀqvÀ PÀ ÉÌ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ.

F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÃ½zÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀU¼ À AÀ vÉ CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¸Áé«Ä ¨ÉÃqÀ dAUÀªÀÄ vÀAzÉ PÀ®èAiÀiÁå ¸Áé«Ä ¸Á. gÁWÀªÃÉ AzÀæ PÁ¯ÉÆÃ¤ EªÀjUÉ "¨ÉÃqÀ dAUÀªÀÄ" eÁw ¥Àª æ ÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÀqÀvÀ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄA¢£À DzÉÃ±ÀPÁÌV ¸Àzj À ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°¸ è ¯ À ÁVzÉ."

11. The report at Annexure-N substantiates as follows:

"7) gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¸Áé«Ä ¨ÉÃqÀ dAUÀªÀÄ vÀAzÉ PÀ®Aè iÀiÁå ¸Áé«Ä EªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è ¨ÉÃqÀ dAUÀªÀÄgÀ «¢üAiÀÄAvÉ UÀ¨ð sÀ PÉÌ °AUÀzsÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ¥ÀzÀÞw EzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ ¢£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ZÀ¥ÀàgÀ ºÁQ (5) LzÀÄ PÀ¼±À UÀ ¼ À ¤À ßlÄÖ ªÀzÀÄs -ªÀgj À UÉ ªÀÄÄvÉöÛ ÊzÉAiÀÄgÀÄ ¸Áß£À ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÁÛg.É £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀzsÀÄ-ªÀgÀgÀÄ ºÉÆ¸À §mÉÖ zsÀj¸ÀÄvÁÛg,É ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉtÂÚUÉ ¨sÁ¹AUÀª£ À ÀÄß PÀnÖ¹ ®UÀß ªÀÄAl¥Àz° À è PÀÆr¹ vÁ½ PÀnÖ¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÜ½ÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀAZÀgÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É

8) ¸Àzj À CfðzÁgÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢zÀ°è ºÉtPÉÌ ºÉÆ¸À §mÉÖ Gr¹, «¨sÀÆw ºÀaÑ, «ªÀiÁ£ÀPÀnÖ, CzÀg° À è PÀÆr¹ JwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛg.É EzÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÀÆ JwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. ºÀÆ¼ÀÄªÁUÀÀ ºÉtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆr¹ ªÀÄtÄÚ ªÀÄÄZÀÄvÑ ÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀAZÀgÄÀ w½¹zÀgÀÄ.

F ªÉÄÃ°£ÀAvÉ J¯Áè CA±ÀU¼ À ÀÄ ¤dªÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸Àzj À ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀª ë ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV, ¸Àzj À ¥ÀAZÀgÀÄ, ¸Àzj À CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¨ÉÃqÀ dAUÀªÀÄ eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ²¥sÁj¹ìzÀÄÝ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÀÄ N¢ w½¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄÆªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀAZÀgÀÄ F PÉ¼U À É gÀÄdÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¤d EgÀÄvÀzÛ .É "

12. The aforementioned findings recorded by the

Revenue authorities has been confirmed by the sixth respondent

as per order dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure-V) and the said

finding has been made on merits and in that view of the matter,

I am of the view that the same has reached finality and the said

exercise has been made pursuant to the direction issued by this

Court in the aforementioned writ petitions and therefore, it is to

be inferred that the petitioner belong to Beda Jangama caste and

accordingly, entitled to the benefits that flows under the relevant

Act. In that view of the matter, issuance of impugned notice by

the fourth respondent, after the conclusion of the proceedings at

the instance of this Court, would amount to interfering with the

direction issued by this Court, that too, in the orders, in two writ

petitions, and therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. In this

connection, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of GOVT. OF A.P. AND OTHERS v.

GUDEPU SAILOO AND OTHERS reported in (2000)4 SCC 625.

paragraph 16 of the judgment reads as under:

"14. We cannot subscribe to the view expressed by the High Court insofar as the order passed by the District Revenue Officer is concerned. Since a mandamus was issued to the Collector, Rangareddy District, to hear and dispose of the explanation, which was required to be submitted by the respondents in reply to the show-cause notice issued to them, the District Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to consider the matter in violation of the direction of the High Court. As a matter of fact, the explanation to the show-cause notice had to be submitted before the Collector and the Collector alone had to consider and take a final decision in the matter. The action initiated by the Collector and the ratification of his

order by the State Government are matters which should have been allowed to take final shape instead of being challenged at the interlocutory stage by the respondents. That being so, there is no necessity of going into the merits of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with regard to the provisions of Section 166-B and 166-C of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli."

13. As regards the submission of learned counsel for the

respondent-State that the writ petition is premature, the

impugned notice has been issued by the sixth respondent

pursuant to the direction issued by this Court as well as after the

revenue authorities conducting the detailed enquiry, wherein it

had come to the conclusion that the petitioner belong to Beda

Jangama and in that view of the matter issuance of impugned

Notice by the fourth respondent at the instance of the

complainant (impleading applicant) is without jurisdiction and

that apart, the impleading applicant can not be allowed to

challenge the caste certificate issued by the sixth respondent as

no material has been produced before the fourth respondent or

before this Court to the locus standi of the impleading applicant

and impleading applicant is not a party to the all the earlier

proceedings referred to above and therefore, I find force in the

submission made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for

the petitioner. This Court in the case of CHIKKANNA (supra),

after evaluating Section 4-A, 4-B, 4-C, 4-D of the Act and Rule

3-A(2) and (3) of the Rules, at paragraph-14 of the judgment,

held as follows:

"14. The said Act and Rules are enacted for the purpose of issuing caste certificate or validity certificate only in the event of the said certificate being made use of for appointment or for getting an admission to a course in an educational institution. In the instant case, the petitioner has not made use of the caste certificate either for appointment in the State or Central Government or for admission in educational institution. He has made use of this certificate to support his contention that he belongs to scheduled tribe at the time of filing nomination papers to a reserved constituency. Therefore, such cases are not covered under this Act. In that view of the matter, the impugned notice issued is one without jurisdiction. Hence, I pass the following order: The writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice is hereby quashed."

(emphasis supplied)

14. In the aforementioned decision, this Court has held

that the issuance of notice by the Deputy Commissioner in the

said case is one without jurisdiction and accordingly, this Court

quashed the same. The said judgment has been reiterated in the

following judgments of this Court in the case of SIDDARAJU and

SMT. SANGEETA (supra) and therefore, I find force in the

submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the petitioner that since the caste certificate has been issued for

the purpose of contesting in the election and as such, the

provisions of the Act and Rules are not applicable. At this

juncture, it is relevant to deduce the observation made by this

Court in Writ Petitions No.201303-304/2018, wherein at

paragraph 13 of the order, it is observed thus:

"13. It is also not in dispute that, on the basis of application made by the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate for the purpose of election, the respondent No.6-Tahasildar by an order dated 05.04.2018 directed the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector of Bidar North to submit a report by holding a panchanama within three days. The said authorities after holding panchanama drawn on 10.04.2018 submitted a joint report to the respondent No.6-Tahasildar on 13.04.2018 and specifically observed the nature and characteristics of the caste of the petitioner and submitted a comparative report and opined the characteristics of caste of the

petitioner resembled the caste Beda Jangama. The said material documents are issued by the authorities during the course of official correspondence, has been ignored by the Tahasildar while passing the impugned order. The Tahasildar being Taluka Magistrate is bounden duty to hold proper enquiry and consider the documents already produced along with application of the petitioner and pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. The same has not been done."

15. In addition to this, this Court, in Writ Petition

No.202022/2019, in the course the order, at paragraph 5, has

observed that the Tahsildar shall conduct enquiry as per the

observations made in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the order dated

21.01.2019 passed in Writ Petitions No.201303-304/2018. In

the said writ petition while granting interim order, this Court

passed detailed order dated 20.04.2018. The observation made

at paragraph 9 of the order, as follows:

"9. This court is afraid of the submission made by the learned A.G.A. Since the application filed by the petitioner on 05-04-2018 requesting to issue case certificate for the purpose of election. Therefore the contention raised that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is appealable cannot be accepted and provisions relied upon by the learned A.G.A is only

for educational purpose and appointment and not for election purpose. Therefore the contention raised by the learned A.G.A is rejected."

16. In the case of PRABHUDEV MALLIKARJUNNAIAH

(supra), at paragraph-5 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held as follows:

"5. The civil Court went into the status of the appellant in the Election Petition relating to Zilla Parishad election in the judgment Ex.P-14 on the basis of the evidence placed before it in that case. The civil Court has pointed out that the contesting candidate had not seriously disputed the status of the appellant as Beda Jangamma. The only contention raised was that there were no Beda Jangammas in Gulbarga District. That question was gone into and it was found that there were Beda Jangammas in Gulbarga District. On that basis, the decision was given by the civil Court. The foundation on which the appellant claimed the status was the certificate issued by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner that he is Beda Jangamma. The High Court found that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue the certificate. Once the status based upon the certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner was found to have lacked jurisdiction, the basis has been knocked off to the bottom. The judgment of the civil Court is not a judgment

in rem nor is the High Court bound by the said judgment."

17. This Court, in Writ Petition No.225917/2020 decided

on 01.02.2022 , at paragraph at paragraphs 30 has observed

thus:

"30. ...the Hon'ble Apex Court, referring to the guideline No.7 in MADHURI PATIL v. COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT, reported in 1994(6) SCC 241, has held that if the enquiry is made based on the documents referred to therein, the same cannot be interfered with by the appellate authority.

(emphasis supplied)

18. In the same judgment, at paragraphs 31 to 33 and 42

and 43, it is observed thus:

31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of In R.P. KAPUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 at paragraph 6 of the judgment held thus:

"6.....It is well-established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. ..."

(emphasis supplied)

32. The said position of law was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAMESH GANDHI reported in (2012) 1 SCC 476.

33. In the case of REAL ESTATE AGENCIES V.

STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS reported in (2012)12 SCC 170, at paragraphs 16 to 18 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:

"16. A reading of the order of the High Court would go to show that its refusal to interdict the developmental works undertaken or about to be undertaken is on the ground that the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy, i.e. a suit for injunction. The Writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is fully empowered to interdict the State or its instrumentalities from embarking upon a course of action to detriment of the rights of the citizens, though, in the exercise of jurisdiction in the domain of public law such a restraint order may not be issued against a private individual. This, of course, is not due to any inherent lack of jurisdiction but on the basis that the public law remedy should not be readily extended to settlement of private disputes between individuals. Even where such an order is sought against a public body the Writ Court may refuse to interfere, if in the process of

determination disputed questions of fact or title would require to be adjudicated.

17. However, there is no universal rule or principle of law which debars the Writ Court from entertaining adjudications involving disputed questions of fact. In fact, in the realm of legal theory, no question or issue would be beyond the adjudicatory jurisdiction under Article 226, even if such adjudication would require taking of oral evidence. However, as a matter of prudence, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, normally would not entertain a dispute which would require it to adjudicate contested questions and conflicting claims of the parties to determine the correct facts for due application of the law. In ABL International Ltd. & Anr. V. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., the precise position of the law in this regard has been explained in paragraphs 16, 17 and 19 of the Judgment in the course of which the earlier views of this Court in Smt. Gunwant Kaur & Ors. v.

Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council has been referred to.

18. The aforesaid paragraphs of the judgment in ABL International Ltd. & Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. may,

therefore, be usefully extracted below: (SCC pp.

567-69)

            "16.     A   perusal       of    this   judgment

though shows that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of facts which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This decision again, in our opinion, does not lay down an absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a civil suit. In this view of ours, we are supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur v.

Municipal Committee, Bhatinda - 1969 (3) SCC 769 where dealing with such a situation of disputed questions of fact in a writ petition this Court held: (SCC p. 774, paras 14-16)

'14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit-in-reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the

petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be

inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.

15. From the averments made in the petition filed by the appellants it is clear that in proof of a large number of allegations the appellants relied upon documentary evidence and the only matter in respect of which conflict of facts may possibly arise related to the due publication of the notification under Section 4 by the Collector.

16. In the present case, in our judgment, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that it will not determine disputed question of fact. The High Court has jurisdiction to determine questions of fact, even if they are in dispute and the present, in our judgment, is a case in which in the interests of both the parties the High Court should have entertained the petition and called for an affidavit-in-

reply from the respondents, and should have proceeded to try the petition instead of relegating the appellants to a separate suit."

17. The above judgment of Gunwant Kaur finds support from another judgment of this Court in the case of Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 587, para 13)

'13.....Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. The questions of fact raised by the petition in this case are elementary.'

18. xxx xxx xxx

19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of Gunwant Kaur (supra) this Court even went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual

obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact."

19. Further, this Court, in the course of order passed in

WP No.225917/2020 and connected petitions, at paragraphs 42

and 43, has observed thus:

"42. In the case of K.S. BHOIR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in AIR 2002 SC 444, it is held that the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that the State and other statutory authorities act in accordance with law.

43. In the case of ARJUN v. JUMNADAS reported in AIR 1989 SC 1599, it is held that the High Court may interfere with the finding of fact, if it is shown that the finding is not supported by any evidence or that the finding is perverse or based upon a view of facts which could never be reasonably entertained."

20. Following the dictum of this Court and the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions I am of the

considered opinion that, the point No.1 is to be answered in

favour of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned Notice

Annexure-S dated 18th December, 2019 and consequently all

further proceedings before the fourth respondent are hereby

quashed and the impleading application deserves to be rejected

for the reasons stated above as impleading applicant has no

locus standi to be heard in this writ petition as impleading

applicant is not a party before the earlier proceedings. In the

result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

(ii) Impugned Notice Annexure-S dated 18.12.2019 is quashed as entire proceedings before the fourth respondent is non-est in view of the judgment of the Court referred to above.