Karnataka High Court
Dayanand S/O Vithoba Naikodi And ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 22 June, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
1 W.P.No.201431/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.201431/2022 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN
1 . DAYANAND S/O VITHOBA NAIKODI
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. WARD NO. 21, NEAR OM SHANTI BHAVAN,
H.NO. 207, PANDURANGA NILAYA,
KANAKADAS BADAWANE,
VIJAYAPURA, TQ AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
2 . SAMARTH S/O DAYANAND NAIKODI
AGE. 8 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. WARD NO. 21,
NEAR OM SHANTI BHAVAN,
H.NO. 207 PANDURANGA NILAYA,
KANAKADAS BADAWANE,
VIJAYAPURA, TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
3 . VIKAS S/O DAYANAND NAIKODI
AGE. 6 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. WARD NO. 21,
NEAR OM SHANTI BHAVAN,
H.NO. 207 PANDURANGA NILAYA,
KANAKADAS BADAWANE,
VIJAYAPURA, TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
2 W.P.No.201431/2022
(THE PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
U/G OF FATHER OF THE PETITIONER NO.1)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. HEMA L. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
MS BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH UNDER SECRETARY-2,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.
3 . THE TAHSILDAR VIJAYAPURA
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586109.
4 . THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586109.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C. JAGADISH, SPL. COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
CIRCULAR VIDE NO.¸ÀPE
À 23 J¸ïJr 2009 DATED 06.06.2020
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ISSUE WRIT
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT
DATED 30.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE
3 W.P.No.201431/2022
ANNEXURES-F, F1 AND F2, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have 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 30.05.2022
vide Annexures-F, F1 and F2 issued by respondent No.3
and further direct the respondent No.3- Tahasildar to
issue caste certificate in favour of the petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
as well as the learned Special Counsel Sri C.Jagadish
appearing for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 that
during the course of enquiry the Tahasildar is required
to take into consideration as to whether the petitioners
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 petitioners 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 petitioners in
accordance with law and in the light of observation
made herein above.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Srt
