Gangadharayya S/O Basalingayya ... vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 480 Kant

                                    1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                               PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                                   AND

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA


           WRIT APPEAL NO.200187/2021 (GM-CC)

BETWEEN:

Sri Gangadharayya
S/o Basalingayya Hiremath
Aged about 30 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o At & Post: Karadakal Village
Tq. Lingasuguru
Dist: Raichur
                                              ... Appellant

(By Sri Ravi B. Patil, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The Deputy Commissioner
       Raichur District
       Office of the Deputy Commissioner
       Raichur-584101

2.     The Assistant Commissioner
       Lingasugur Sub-Division
       Office of the Assistant Commissioner
       Lingasugur
       Dist: Raichur-584122
                                     2



3.     The Tahsildar
       Lingasuguru Taluk
       Office of the Tahasildar
       Raichur District

4.     The Revenue Inspector
       Tahasil Office
       Lingasuguru
       Dist: Raichur

5.     The Superintendent of Police
       Civil Rights Enforcement
       S.P. Office, Police Bhavan
       Kalaburagi District
       Kalaburagi-585102
                                                          ... Respondents

(By Sri C. Jagadish, Special Counsel)

          This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, praying to call for the records in W.P.No.201687/2021 on the
file of learned Single Judge of this Court, to set aside the order impugned
dated 20.09.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.201687/2021 and
consequentially to allow the writ petition as prayed for, etc.

        This appeal coming on for orders this day, S.R.Krishna Kumar J.,
delivered the following:

                             JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the impugned interim

order dated 20.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.201687/2021 by

the learned Single Judge whereby the claim of the appellant

that he belongs to 'Beda Jangama' caste was referred to the

Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Kalaburagi.

2. It is necessary to extract the prayers sought for by

the petitioner in the writ petition, which read as under:

1) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order in case No.RDS 1100378 passed by the 1st respondent authority dated 03/12/2020 as at Annexure - F rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner seeking for issuance of caste certificate and consequentially to set aside the order of 2nd and 3rd respondent authorities dated 19/03/2018 and 05/10/2018 bearing No.Sam/Kam/Sakaala-1/appeal 08/2018 as at Annexure - B and C as illegal and arbitrary.

2) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to issue caste certificate by referring to the documents relied upon by the petitioner by holding local inspection after due enquiry, in the interest of justice and equity.

3) Pass any order as this Honourable court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

3. A perusal of the memorandum of writ petition,

documents produced by the appellant and the prayers sought

for by the appellant will clearly indicate that the grievance of

the petitioner is directed against the legality, validity and

correctness of the impugned orders at Annexure-B dated

19.03.2018 passed by the Tahsildar, Annexure-C dated

05.10.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and

Annexure-F dated 03.12.2020 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner, all of whom have rejected the claim of the

appellant that he belongs to 'Beda Jangama' caste. It is the

specific contention of the appellant in the writ petition as well

as before this court that the impugned orders challenged in

the writ petition are contrary to the material on record as well

as provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC

(Reservation of Appointment, Etc.) Act, 1990 and

consequently the impugned orders passed by all the three

authorities deserve to be set aside. It is further contended by

the learned counsel for the appellant before us that the

appellant never sought for reference of the dispute before the

Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Kalaburagi and that the limited

and restricted scope of the petition before the learned Single

Judge is with regard to the validity, legality and correctness of

the impugned orders and as such, the learned Single Judge

committed an error in referring the dispute to the CRE Cell in

the facts and circumstances of the present case and the

consequential order directing impleadment of the

Superintendent of Police, CRE Cell, Kalaburagi as additional

respondent No.5 is also incorrect and erroneous and the same

deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that having regard to the dispute in controversy as to

whether the appellant belongs to 'Veerashaiva Lingayat

jangama' caste or 'Beda Jangama' caste, the learned Single

Judge was fully justified in referring the dispute to the CRE

Cell, Kalaburagi by impleading the Superintendent of Police as

respondent No.5 and as such impugned orders passed by the

learned Single Judge does not call for any interference by this

court in the present appeal.

5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

the appellant, in the light of the material on record including

the pleadings and documents of the parties as well as the

impugned orders passed by the Thasildar, Assistant

Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner which were

assailed in the writ petition, the scope of the writ petition was

restricted to examination of the legality, validity and

correctness of the said impugned orders and consequently,

the question of referring the dispute to the CRE Cell would not

arise particularly when no such request was made either by

the appellant or respondents before the learned Single Judge.

Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion

on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions in the writ

petition pending before the learned Single Judge, we are of

the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge referring the dispute to the CRE Cell

cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside.

6. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 20.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.201687/2021 is hereby set aside.

(iii) The learned Single Judge is directed to proceed to dispose of the writ petition on merits and in accordance with law.

(iv) All rival contentions urged by both the sides are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory

applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE swk/BL