Vinayaka S/O Siddanna Natikar vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 8660 Kant

                               1         W.P.No.201258/2022


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    KALABURAGI BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

       WRIT PETITION NO.201258/2022 (GM-CC)

BETWEEN:
Vinayaka S/o Siddanna Natikar,
Age: 22 Years, Occ: Student,
R/o Near Revanasiddeshwara Temple,
Hawalaga Village, Tq: Afzalpur,
Dist: Kalaburagi.
                                                 ... Petitioner
(By Smt. Hema L.Kulakarni &
    Sri Manjunath Ginni, Advocates)

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, Afzalpur,
       Tq: Afzalpur, Dist: Kalaburagi- 585102.

4.     The Revenue Inspector,
       Tq: Afzalpur, Dist: Kalaburagi-585102.
                                               ... Respondents
(By Sri C.Jagadish, Special Counsel for R1 to R4)
                                2        W.P.No.201258/2022


     This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of certiorari
quashing the impugned Circle 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 14.03.2022 issued by the respondent
No.3 vide Annexure-F and issue writ of mandamus directing
the respondent No.3-Tahsildar to issue caste certificate in
favour of the petitioner as Schedule Tribe forthwith.

      This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:

                         ORDER

The petitioner has 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 endorsement dated 14.03.2022 vide Annexure-F

issued by respondent No.3 and further direct the respondent

No.3- Tahasildar to issue caste certificate in favour of the

petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as the learned Special Counsel Sri C.Jagadish appearing

for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 circular 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 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 petitioner has not made it specific whether

he 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

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 Tahasidlar 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 petitioner 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

by the Special Counsel and thereafterwards consider the case

of the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate 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

endorsement is quashed and Tahasildar shall issue caste

certificate in favour of petitioner in accordance with law and

in the light of observation made herein above.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sn