Karnataka High Court
Hanamantray S/O Gangappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 24 June, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
1 W.P.No.201461/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.201461/2022 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
1. Hanamantray S/o Gangappa Tonshyal,
Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Vikas High School, Station Road,
Sindagi Naka, Vijayapura,
Tq. & Dist: Vijayapura.
2. Sribalu S/o Hanamantray Tonshyal,
Age: 16 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Vikas High School Station road,
Sindagi Naka, Vijayapura,
Tq. & Dist: Vijayapura.
3. Sriom S/o Hanamantray Tonshyal,
Age: 17 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Vikas High School Station road,
Sindagi Naka, Vijayapura,
Tq. & Dist: Vijayapura.
4. Bhimashankar S/o Gangappa Tonshyal,
Age: 23 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Ward No.16, Near Sindagi Naka,
Jay Karnataka Nagar, vijayapura,
Tq. & Dist: Vijayapura.
(The petitioner No.2 and 3 are minors U/G of
father of the petitioner No.1)
... Petitioners
(By Smt. Hema L.Kulakarni, Advocate)
2 W.P.No.201461/2022
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-586109.
4. The Revenue Inspector,
Tq. & Dist: Vijayapura-586109.
... Respondents
(By Sri. C.Jagadish, Spl. Counsel)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 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 and etc.
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 endorsements dated 12.01.2021 and 12.02.2021
vide Annexures-F, F1, F2 and F3 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 endorsement 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 petitioners have not made it specific
whether they 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
