Sri. Vageesh B M vs The Deputy Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 2249 Kant

                           1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

           WRIT PETITION No.8087 OF 2023 (GM-CC)

BETWEEN:

SRI VAGEESH B. M,
S/O SRI NANJAIAH B. M,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O HARALAHALLI,
TQ: HARIHAR,
DIST: DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
                                              ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI GANGADHAR S. GURUMATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI GURUDEV I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
     KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
     K.G.ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   SHASHIKUMAR B. N,
     S/O NARASIMHAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
     R/O NO. 170, HADRIPURA,
     KADANUR,
     DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
                                  2



     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 201.
                                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,
    SRI C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI R. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. JATI.C/CR 02/23-24 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE R-1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND F ON THE FILE
OF THE R-1 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS.

     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 13.04.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                                ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question notice

dated 03-04-2023 by which the 1st respondent/Deputy

Commissioner directs the petitioner to appear before him for an

inquiry regarding the caste certificate that is issued to the petitioner

on 06-07-2020 depicting him to be belonging to Scheduled

Caste/Beda Jangama. It is calling in question the notice the subject

petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Gangadhar S.Gurumath, learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned senior

counsel along with Sri C.Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for the

1st respondent and Sri R.Nagabhushan, learned counsel appearing

for caveator-respondent No.2.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details facts, in brief, are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be belonging to Beda Jangama caste

which is a notified Scheduled Caste. It is the further claim of the

petitioner that he has been doing social service and has gained

popularity through social service among the public at large. Lot of

activities done by the petitioner for the benefit of the public is what

is pleaded as a preamble to the petition. The petitioner applies for

a caste certificate to the jurisdictional Tahsildar seeking issuance of

a caste certificate depicting him to be belonging to Beda Jangama.

It is the averment in the petition that the Tahsildar after conduct of

inquiry, inspection and satisfying himself with regard to

genuineness of the claim of the petitioner, issued a caste certificate

to the petitioner on 06-07-2020. For two years after issuance of

caste certificate, there was no problem. The 2nd respondent, a

resident of Hadripura Kadanur village, Doddaballapur Taluk,

Bangalore Rural District registers a complaint against the petitioner

before the Deputy Commissioner contending that the caste

certificate issued to the petitioner is bogus, as he does not belong

to Beda Jangama caste. Based upon the said complaint the

impugned notice emerges directing the petitioner to appear before

the Deputy Commissioner and produce all the documents to

demonstrate/validate that he belongs to Beda Jangama caste. It is

this notice that drives the petitioner to this court in the subject

petition.

4. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner

would, for the present, urge a solitary contention that the 2nd

respondent/complainant has no locus to register a complaint or call

in question the caste status of the petitioner. He is neither a rival

candidate in any employment or for any benefit or a rival candidate

in the elections. That being the case, it is the submission of the

learned senior counsel that the very notice issued, pursuant to the

complaint, is without jurisdiction.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st

respondent would seek to contend that what is issued is a notice to

the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to demonstrate before the

Deputy Commissioner with regard to genuineness of the caste

certificate that is issued by the Tahsildar. Challenge to the show

cause notice is available only if it is without jurisdiction. In the case

at hand, it is not the case of the petitioner, that the Authority who

has issued notice does not have jurisdiction to issue such a notice.

It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the

complainant does have locus as he belongs to Scheduled Caste and

being a Scheduled Caste, he is entitled to call in question or register

a complaint against a person who is claiming to be a Scheduled

Caste but actually does not belong to Scheduled Caste who can

take benefit of the caste status in any part of the State. She would

seek to place reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court rendered at Kalaburgi Bench in STATE OF KARANTAKA

AND OTHERS v. RAVINDRA SWAMY AND OTHERS1, wherein

the Division Bench considering the entire spectrum of law has held

that the Deputy Commissioner does have jurisdiction under Section

W.A.No.200065of 2022 decided on 13-01-2023

4F of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other

Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990

('the Act' for short) and would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. In reply to the said submissions made by the learned

senior counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner seeks to place reliance upon the

judgment rendered by this court in MS. M.N. KALAVATHI v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA2 and judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN v. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA3.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned senior counsels, learned counsel

and have perused the material on record.

8. The issue lies in a narrow compass, as the solitary

submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that

the complainant does not have locus to register the complaint. The

petitioner for the first time, when he was 45 years old secures a

W.P.1898 of 2021 decided on 2-01-2023

(2013) 4 SCC 465

caste certificate depicting him to be belonging to Beda Jangama

caste. An application is made before the jurisdictional Tahsildar by

the petitioner who draws up proceedings on 06-07-2020. The

Tahsildar claims to have verified the documents submitted by the

petitioner. The reference made in the proceedings does not refer to

any document produced by the petitioner, but mentions several

Government orders. The Tahsildar also indicates that he himself

conducted inspection, analyses the report and the order is passed.

It is opined that the caste certificate is to be given to the petitioner

as belonging to Beda Jangama Caste. The order reads as follows:

"DzÉñÀ

ªÁVñï. B.M. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ¥ÀĵÀà B.M. AiÀiÁ£Éà S.H.¸ÀĪÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ CªÀÄÆ®å B.M. ºÁUÀÆ DzÀ±Àð B.M. EªÀgÄÀ UÀ¼À ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ G¯ÉèÃR (1 jAzÀ 4)gÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ºÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£ÀªÀÉvÛÀ ¸ÀĦæÃAPÉÆÃmïð wæð£À DzÉñÀUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÉ®èjUÀÆ ¨ÉÃqÀdAUÀªÀÄ eÁw ¥ÀæªiÀ Át ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ:06.07.2020 ¸ÀܼÀ:¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ."

After the said proceedings, on the same day, the caste certificate is

issued in favour of the petitioner. The sequence to the grant is this

way, an application is made by the petitioner but the date of the

application does not find a place in the proceedings. Inspection and

verification of all documents is done on 06-07-2020 and caste

certificate is also issued on 06-07-2020. Therefore, not a day earlier

or not a date later to the inspection of documents, verification

would take place and the Tahsildar on satisfaction that the

petitioner does belong to Beda Jangama issues a caste certificate.

Based on the said caste certificate, it appears, that the petitioner is

now intending to contest the ensuing elections to the Karnataka

Legislative Assembly.

9. A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner

on 24-03-2022 by a person called Shekar Naik who describes

himself to be a District Secretary of the Karnataka Rajya Raitha

Sangha, Davangere. The complaint is registered before the

Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Davangere. The

registration of proceedings by the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell is

called in question before this Court in Criminal Petition No.3070 of

2022 and this Court by its order dated 11-04-2022 has granted an

interim order of stay. Thus, the proceedings before the Civil Rights

Enforcement Cell are stalled thereon. With the onset of elections to

the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, one Shashidhar H.N, who

claims to be a resident of Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural

District files a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore

under the Act challenging the caste certificate issued to the

petitioner on the ground that he belongs to Hindu Veerashiva

Lingayat Community, which is not a Scheduled Caste. Details of

the caste status of the petitioner are narrated in the revision

petition. Pursuant to the revision petition so filed, the Deputy

Commissioner issues a notice to the petitioner directing his

appearance before him. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner

is before this Court.

10. The only issue is, whether the complainant has locus to

challenge the caste certificate of the petitioner. The learned senior

counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in

the case of MS. M.N. KALAVATHI (supra) rendered by this Court.

The judgment was plainly following a Division Bench judgment in

the case of R.S. MAHADEV v. B.R. GOPAMMA AND OTHERS4.

The said Division Bench of this Court was following the judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN

PATHAN (supra) on the issue of locus. The Apex Court in the case

of AYAAUBKHAN NOOR KHAN PATHAN has elucidated the issue

on locus qua the caste certificate. The Apex Court holds that a

stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless

he satisfies the Authority that he falls within the category of

aggrieved person. Only a person who has suffered or suffers an

injury can challenge the action is what is held by the Apex Court.

Therefore, it becomes germane to notice the facts. Paragraph 6 of

the judgment depicts what was the issue before the Apex Court.

The 5th respondent therein was the complainant. The complainant

did not belong to any reserved category. As a matter of fact, the

complainant belonged to general category. Therefore, it was

contended that he has no right or locus to challenge the certificate

issued to the appellant therein before the Apex Court. It is on this

premise, the Apex Court holds that the complainant therein had no

locus to call in question a caste certificate issued to some other

W.A.No.1242 of 2019 dated 03-06-2021

caste, unless he belongs to the said reserved category. Paragraph

6 of the said judgment reads as follows:

"6. Shri A.V. Savant, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant has submitted that Respondent 5 does not belong to any reserved category, in fact, he belongs to the general category and hence, he has no right or locus standi to challenge the appellant's certificate. Thus, the High Court committed an error by directing the Scrutiny Committee to entertain the complaint filed by Respondent 5. It has further been submitted that, despite the directions given by this Court, the Scrutiny Committee failed to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice, as the appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and no order was passed with respect to his application for recalling such witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination, which has no doubt, resulted in the grave miscarriage of justice. The affidavit filed by the Scrutiny Committee did not clarify, or make any specific statement with respect to whether or not the appellant was permitted to cross-examine witnesses. It further did not clarify whether the application dated 28-2- 2012 filed by the appellant to recall witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination, has been disposed of. Moreover, the procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee is in contravention of the statutory requirements, as have been specified under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (VimuktaJatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001) (hereinafter referred to as "the 2001 Act") and the 2003 Rules which are framed under the 2001 Act and therefore, all proceedings hereby stand vitiated. The appellant placed reliance upon several documents which are all very old and, therefore, their authenticity should not have been doubted. The earlier report submitted by the Vigilance Cell dated 29-12-1998 clearly

stated that the traits and characteristics of the appellant's family matched with those of Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes). The action of Respondent 5 is therefore completely mala fide and is intended, solely to harass the appellant, and the High Court committed grave error in not deciding the issue related to the locus standi of Respondent 5 in relation to him filing a complaint in the first place, as the said issue was specifically raised by the appellant. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."

The Apex Court further considers locus of the complainant therein.

Paragraph 18 thereof reads as follows:

"Locus standi of Respondent 5

18. As Respondent 5 does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category, the garb adopted by him, of serving the cause of Scheduled Tribe candidates who might have been deprived of their legitimate right to be considered for the post, must be considered by this Court in order to determine whether Respondent 5, is in fact, in a legitimate position to lay any claim before any forum, whatsoever."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court has proceeded on the foundation that the 5th

respondent/complainant does not belong to Scheduled Caste

category; the garb adopted by him of serving the cause of

Scheduled Tribe candidate was held to be acceptable. The Apex

Court further has held as follows:

"19. This Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad [(2012) 4 SCC 407] , held as under : (SCC pp. 434-35, paras 58-60)

"58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, ex-

President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of the law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria.

59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro rationevoluntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons.

60. Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party."

20. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. [(2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] , wherein it was held that the applicant before the High Court could not challenge the appointment of a person as she was in no way aggrieved, for she herself could not have been selected by adopting either method. Moreover, the appointment cannot be challenged at a belated stage and, hence, the petition should have been rejected by the High Court on the grounds of delay and non-

maintainability alone.

21. In Balbir Kaur v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board [(2008) 12 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 106] , it has been held that a violation of the equality clauses enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, or discrimination in any form, can be alleged, provided that, the writ petitioner demonstrates a certain appreciable disadvantage qua other similarly situated persons. While dealing with the similar issue, this Court in Raju RamsingVasave v. Mahesh DeoraoBhivapurkar [(2008) 9 SCC 54 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 802] held : (SCC p. 74, para 45) "45. We must now deal with the question of locus standi. A special leave petition ordinarily would not have been entertained at the instance of the appellant. Validity of appointment or otherwise on the basis of a caste certificate granted by a committee is ordinarily a matter between the employer and the employee. This Court, however, when a question is raised, can take cognizance of a matter of such grave importance suo motu. It may not treat the special leave petition as a public interest litigation, but, as a public law litigation. It is, in a proceeding of that nature, permissible for the court to make a detailed enquiry with regard to the broader aspects of the matter although it was initiated at the instance of a person having a private interest. A deeper scrutiny can be made so as to enable the court to find out as to whether a party to a lis is guilty of commission of fraud on the Constitution. If such an enquiry subserves the greater public interest and has a

far-reaching effect on the society, in our opinion, this Court will not shirk its responsibilities from doing so." (See also Manohar Joshi v. State of Maharashtra[(2012) 3 SCC 619].)

22. In Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. [(2001) 4 SCC 734 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 806 : AIR 2001 SC 1739] , this Court held : (SCC p. 736, para 2)

"2. ... Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief."

23. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo motu, in such respect."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court was considering a case where the

complainant therein did not belong to Scheduled Caste, he was

infact belonging to general category. The contention was, he was

espousing the cause for justice for the people belonging to the

Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the Court holds that the complainant

had no locus to challenge a caste certificate given to a Scheduled

Caste. At paragraph 23, the Apex Court clearly holds that in

exceptional circumstances, the Court may examine the issue even if

bonafides of the complainant are doubted, but the issue raised by

him in the opinion of the Court would require consideration. The

petitioner, in the case at hand, is a person belonging to Scheduled

Caste. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has no locus to call in

question a caste certificate issued to another Scheduled Caste

person, which according to him is a fraud, and takes away the right

and interest of a genuine Scheduled Caste. The revision filed by

the second respondent is elaborate and every minute detail is

narrated, any observation made on the contents of the revision

petition will prejudice the case of the petitioner before the Deputy

Commissioner.

11. Insofar as the judgment of the Division Bench in the case

of R.S.MAHADEV (supra) is concerned, the said judgment would

also be inapplicable to the facts of the case, as the Division Bench

was considering a case where the complainant was a busybody and

not a person aggrieved. The facts therein were that the person who

had secured caste certificate did not belong to Scheduled Caste by

birth, but by marriage to a Scheduled Caste she was given the

caste certificate. The question was a person belonging to other

community could be given a caste certificate on marriage .That was

challenged by the complainant four years after the retirement of the

beneficiary. The Division Bench clearly holds that the complaint

therein had no locus to challenge the caste certificate issued to the

beneficiary therein. Therefore, both the judgments relied on by the

learned senior counsel for the petitioner - one in the case of MS.

M.N. KALAVATHI and the other in the case of AYAAUBKHAN

NOORKHAN PATHAN, would become inapplicable to the facts of

the case, qua the solitary submission i.e., the locus of the

complainant.

12. In the light of the aforesaid judgment not becoming

applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as the complainant in

the case on hand does belong to a Scheduled Caste, the writ

petition challenging a show cause notice is unentertainable.

Therefore, it is for the petitioner to appear before the Deputy

Commissioner as is directed and produce all such documents that

are needed to advance his case in the revision petition. None of the

observations made in the course of this order will either influence or

bind the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner.

13. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp CT:SS