Karnataka High Court
G. Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2023
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No. 2841 OF 2023 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
G.MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE GOVINDU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FORMER MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
R/AT MARAHERU KOTHUR,
AMBLIKAL POST,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,
SRI RAGUPATHY K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
M.S. BUILDING, VIKASA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE
MULBAGAL ROAD, NH-75
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 101.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (ADMN)
DEPARTMENT OF ZILLA PANCHAYATH
KOLAR CHICKBALLAPUR ROAD
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 131.
5. MEMBER SECRETARY / THE JOINT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
KOLAR DISTRICT
GANDHINAGAR,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT CELL,
KOLAR DIVISION,
KOLAR - 563 101.
7. SHRI N.MUNIANJINAPPA
S/O H.NARAYANAPPA,
WARD NO. 8,
MUTHYALAPETE,
MULBAGAL TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
8. SHRI G.VENKATARAVANA
S/O LATE GOVINDU,
MARAHERU KOTHURU VILLAGE,
3
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
9. SHRI AMARESH
S/O MUNISWAMY @ SAKRAPPA
KEELAGANI VILLAGE
AVANI HOBLI
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
10 . SHRI M.N.AMBARISH
S/O NARAYANAPPA
MALEKUPPA VILLAGE
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
11 . SHRI P.CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE PILLAPPA
ASALI ATHIKUNTE VILLAGE
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
12 . SHRI JAGADISH
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY RAJ,
NO. 3264/5, MUTHYALPET,
MULBAGAL TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
13 . SHRI DODDACHOWDAPPA
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
NAGAVARA VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
(DEAD)
14 . SHRI C.RAMAKRISHNAIAH
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
KURAGAL VILLAGE AND POST,
4
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
15 . SHRI RANJITH KUMAR T,
S/O M.THIMMAIAH
NETHAJI NAGAR
MULBAGAL TOWN AND TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
16 . SHRI H.A.LAKSHMAIAH
S/O AVALAPPA
NO. 4081, 1ST CROSS
M.N.HALLI ROAD
MULBAGAL TOWN AND TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
17 . SHRI V.ADINARAYANA
S/O VENKATARAMAPPA
PEDDAREDDYPALLI VILLAGE
BAGEPALLI TALUK
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 207.
18 . SHRI G.ALANGUR RAMANNA
S/O GANESHAPPA
SONNAVADI VILLAGE
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
19 . SHRI CHALAPATHY
S/O VENKATESHAPPA
NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
20 . SHRI V.MARAPPA
S/O VENKATARASHAMBOVI
OLAGERANAHALLI VILLAGE
MULBAGAL TALUK
5
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
21 . SHRI T.M.SHIVANNA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
THORADI VILLAGE
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
22 . SHRI Y.SRINIVASAN PATAPAT
S/O A.V.YALLAPPA
NO.32, B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL - 562 125.
23 . SHRI NAGARAJ V,
S/O VIDYARANYA
MADDERI VILLAGE
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
24 . SHRI T.V.BALAKRISHNA
S/O VENKATANABOVI
THIMMANAYAKANAHALLI
MALLANAYAKANAHALLI POST
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
25 . SHRI D.VENKATARAVANAPPA
S/O DODDAKAMANNA
KESARAMANGALA VILLAGE
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
26 . SHRI N.SRINIVAS
S/O NARAYANAPPA
GUMMAKAL VILLAGE
G.MARANDAHALLI POST
6
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
27 . SHRI V.SRINIVAS
S/O VENKATARAMAPPA
NETHAJI NAGAR
MULBAGAL TOWN
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI PRAKASH M. PATIL, ADVOCATE R7;
SRI N.S.SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,
SMT. KAVYASHREE G.S, ADVOCATE FOR R9 AND R22;
SRI K.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R10, R14 TO R21, R23
TO R27;
NOTICE TO R11 AND R12 IS DISPENSDED WITH VIDE
COURT ORDER DTED 08/02/2023;
SRI M.S.B. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R11)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
REPORT DATED 27/10/2021 SUBMITTED BY R-2 IN CIVIL APPEAL
NO. 4533/2018 BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
7
ORDER
The petitioner is knocking at the doors of this Court in the
subject petition being aggrieved by the report of the District Caste
Verification Committee (for short 'DCVC') dated 27-10-2021 and
has sought consequential direction to confirm the caste certificate
issued to him by the Competent Authority on 03-04-2012 as legal
and valid.
2. Facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject
petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
The petitioner claims to be a resident of Maraheru Kothur
Village and claims to be belonging to 'Budaga Jangama' caste. It is
the further averment that custom and religious practices that the
petitioner follows and professes are that of Budaga Jangama caste.
The petitioner claims that his parents and his fore-fathers also
belonged to Budaga Jangama caste. Owing to their illiteracy and
ignorance the school authorities had indicated the caste of the
petitioner as belonging to 'Byragi', looking at the attire of his
parents. In the year 2008 the petitioner applies for grant of a caste
certificate in his favour depicting him to be belonging to Budaga
Jangama caste before the jurisdictional Tahsildar. The Tahsildar
rejects the application of the petitioner in terms of his order dated
04-04-2008 on the ground that the petitioner cannot belong to
Budaga Jangama caste as there were no people of Budaga Jangama
caste in Kolar District. This is challenged before the DCVC by filing
an appeal in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation
of Appointment etc.,) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'
for short) and the Rules framed thereunder namely the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointment etc.,) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules' for short).
3. The DCVC rejects the appeal filed by the petitioner in terms
of its order dated 12-04-2008 for want of any supporting material
to declare the petitioner to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste.
The petitioner claims to have collected sufficient material in support
of his case for issuance of a caste certificate and submits a fresh
application to the Tahsildar for issuance of such certificate. The
Tahsildar forwards the application submitted by the petitioner to the
Deputy Commissioner on 16-04-2010 seeking a clarification for
issuance of caste certificate in favour of the petitioner as sought by
him to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. The Deputy
Commissioner on 01-07-2010 directs the Tahsildar to issue the
caste certificate as sought by the petitioner, without any delay. The
Tahsildar then seeks clarification with regard to wrong caste entries
in the school records of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner
thereafter further directs issuance of caste certificate in favour of
the petitioner on 17-07-2010. The Tahsildar then issues the caste
certificate on 26-11-2010 depicting the petitioner to be belonging to
Budaga Jangama caste.
4. It is the averment in the petition that the petitioner then
comes to know that the entire file relating to the petitioner being
declared to be a Budaga Jangama caste while issuing caste
certificate vanished from the office of the Tahsildar. Owing to such
shock and surprise, the petitioner makes a fresh application before
the Deputy Commissioner on 02-01-2012 for issuance of a caste
certificate declaring him to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste.
The Deputy Commissioner, on receipt of the application, refers the
matter to the Tahsildar for necessary action. It is claimed that the
Tahsildar after receipt of the communication from the Deputy
Commissioner drew up a spot mahazar and then concludes that the
petitioner belongs to Budaga Jangama caste and issues a caste
certificate depicting him to be belonging to "Budaga Jangama"
caste.
5. The petitioner then owing to necessity submits an
application under the Right to Information Act before the Tahsildar
seeking issuance of certified copy of an order dated 27-03-2012
which according to the petitioner was a detailed order passed by
the Tahsildar declaring the petitioner as belonging to Budaga
Jangama caste. The Tahsildar on the said application issues an
endorsement on 14-03-2013 stating that the office of the Tahsildar,
Mulbagal Taluk has not issued a caste certificate depicting the
petitioner to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. This leads the
petitioner to this Court in Writ Petition No.17122 of 2013. The
petitioner by then had contested the elections from Mulbagal
constituency of Kolar District on the strength of the caste certificate
that was allegedly issued by the Tahsildar on 03-04-2012 and won
the election.
6. Writ petitions come to be filed by rival candidates in Writ
Petition Nos.20025 of 2013 and 20026 of 2013 praying action to be
initiated against the present petitioner for his acts of misuse and
abuse of claiming to be a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and
contesting from 145 Mulbagal Assembly (SC) Constituency in Kolar
District on the basis of a false caste certificate. Another writ
petition was filed in Writ Petition No.24119 of 2013 by a voter of
the constituency in which the petitioner had been elected seeking a
writ in the nature of quo warranto to stop the petitioner from
functioning as a legislator from the aforesaid constituency. All
these three petitions were taken up together and disposed of by an
order dated 18-09-2013 keeping all the issues open and permitting
challenge to be laid in an appropriately brought up election petition
and also reserving to the petitioners to urge all their grounds and
contentions in the election petition. An election petition was filed on
08-05-2013 in Election Petition No.4 of 2013 before this Court. The
Election Petition was allowed in terms of the order of this Court on
25-04-2018 holding that the petitioner did not belong to Budaga
Jangama caste and he did belong to Byragi caste which comes
under other backward class. The petitioner calls the said order in
question as his election had been set aside before the Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No.4533 of 2018.
7. The Apex Court in terms of its order dated 30-01-2020
directed the 2nd respondent to submit a report afresh with regard to
the caste status of the petitioner whether he belongs to Budaga
Jangama caste or Byragi caste. The DCVC upon directions of the
Apex Court conducts a detailed inquiry and passes an order holding
that the petitioner does not belong to Budaga Jangama caste but
belongs to Byragi caste and in view of the said position the
petitioner had failed to prove that he belongs to Budaga Jangama
caste and the Committee declares that the petitioner is not eligible
for any benefit claiming to be a Scheduled Caste. This report of the
DCVC dated 27-10-2021 was placed before the Apex Court in the
aforesaid Civil Appeal No.4533 of 2018. The Apex Court considering
that a report has now emerged against the petitioner from the
hands of the DCVC reserved liberty to the petitioner to challenge
the findings of the Committee in terms of its report before this
Court. While so directing the Apex Court also observes that while
considering the challenge this Court shall not be influenced by the
observations made in the order impugned before the Apex Court. It
is in that light, the present petition is preferred calling in question
the order and the proceedings of the DCVC in terms of its report
dated 27-10-2021.
8. Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri C. Jagadish, learned counsel
appearing for respondents 1 to 6, Sri Prakash M. Patil, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.7, Sri N.S. Sheshadri, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.8, Smt. Pramila Nesargi,
learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 9 and 22, Sri
K.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 10, 14 to
21, 23 to 27 and Sri M.S.B Anand, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.11.
SUBMISSIONS:
PETITIONER'S:
9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that the Tahsildar initially had issued a caste certificate in
favour of the petitioner in the year 2012. The caste certificate did
not emerge from thin air. It was after conduct of a detailed enquiry
pursuant to the directions of the Deputy Commissioner and after
seeking all clarifications the caste certificate was issued. The
petitioner on the strength valid caste certificate had contested the
elections to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly. When the
petitioner comes to know that there was some problem in the office
of the Tahsildar with regard to a detailed order being passed,
applies under the Right to Information Act seeking detailed order
from the Tahsildar. It is then an endorsement is issued stating that
the Tahsildar has never issued any caste certificate to the petitioner
as belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. It is from here the problem
crops up.
9.1. It is the emphatic submission of the learned senior
counsel that political opponents of the petitioner have generated
the litigation against the petitioner only to defeat the right of an
elected representative being a Scheduled Caste. Insofar as the
report of the DCVC dated 27-10-2021 is concerned it is his
emphatic submission that the DCVC has not looked into any aspect
of the matter and also ignores the Kolar Gazetteer issued in the
year 1939 which clearly depicts the presence or existence of people
belonging to Budaga Jangama caste in Kolar District. The DCVC
has gone completely by its own records ignoring the evidence of
persons who deposed before the Committee wherein it was clearly
an evidence in favour of the petitioner. He would contend that the
writ petition be allowed, the report be quashed and the petitioner
be declared to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste.
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6:
10. The learned counsel representing the State/ respondents
1 to 6, Sri C. Jagadish, would vehemently refute the submissions of
the learned senior counsel by seeking to contend that the petitioner
had applied for a caste certificate for the first time in his life time in
the year 2008. The Tahsildar had rightly rejected the caste
certificate which was not challenged by the petitioner before any
judicial or quasi judicial fora. Having left the said endorsement
unchallenged again claims to have applied for a certificate and
claims to have obtained the same from the Tahsildar on 03-04-
2012. The Tahsildar, on perusal of the records, found that there
was no such caste certificate issued by the then Tahsildar of his
office. By then the petitioner had contested the elections as a
Scheduled Caste candidate - Budaga Jangama and had won from
Mulbagal constituency - Constituency No.145.
10.1. It is then the rejection crops up by a detailed order in
the election petition and in the election petition the election of the
petitioner was set aside. The Apex Court though did not upturn the
order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in the
election petition, but directed a fresh report to be obtained from the
office of the DCVC. The DCVC then for over 10 months held a
detailed enquiry, verified plethora of documents and found that the
petitioner did not belong to Budaga Jangama caste. Therefore, the
finding in the election petition and in the proceedings before the
DCVC afresh, all would lead to an unmistakable conclusion that the
petitioner had played fraud by generating a false caste certificate
and contesting the election as a Scheduled Caste candidate. He
would submit that the petition be dismissed with exemplary costs.
REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
11. In reply to the said submissions, the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Apex Court has
clearly directed that the order impugned before it i.e., the order
passed in the election petition - E.P.No.4 of 2013 should not
influence the present petition. Therefore, none of the findings
therein should even be looked into and the matter has to be
considered afresh. He would then take this Court to plethora of
documents to contend that the petitioner does belong to Budaga
Jangama caste and the Kolar Gazetteer was the primary evidence
to demonstrate that people of such caste were existing in Kolar
District from time immemorial.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS 9 AND 22:
12. The learned senior counsel representing respondents 9
and 22, Smt.Pramila Nesargi, would toe the lines of the learned
counsel Sri C. Jagadish and seeks to contend that there are no
documents in favour of the petitioner to demonstrate that he
belongs to Budaga Jangama caste. All the witnesses who have
deposed before the DCVC in favour of the petitioner are all his
family persons. There is no independent witness who came forward
and deposed before the Committee that the petitioner or his family
members belonged to Budaga Jangama caste. The learned senior
counsel would submit that the proceedings and the order of the
DCVC are after consideration of all the relevant material and,
therefore, the petition has to be dismissed.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent is
sailing with the petitioner as 8th respondent is the brother of the
petitioner and takes this Court to his statement of objections
seeking to contend that they belong to Budaga Jangama caste and
the illiteracy or ignorance of law is the sole reason for the family of
the petitioner not taking any benefit till the year 2008. He would
otherwise toe the lines of the learned senior counsel representing
the petitioner.
14. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that falls
for consideration is, whether the order of the DCVC call for any
interference.
CONSIDERATION:
15. Though the aforesaid facts, dates and link in the chain of
events are a matter of record, it would require a little amplification
and are therefore, require reiteration, but before embarking upon
consideration of respective submissions, I deem it appropriate to
notice the genesis of Budaga Jangama caste, to be a Scheduled
caste, and its declaration on the nation becoming a Republic.
THE GENESIS OF BUDAGA JANGAMA AS A SCHEDULED
CASTE:
16. On 10-08-1950 after coming into force of Constitution of
India, a constitutional order/presidential order comes to be issued
under Article 341 of the Constitution of India viz., Constitution
(Schedule Castes) Order 1950. In the erstwhile State of Mysore
only six castes were declared to be belonging to Scheduled Castes.
The six castes were the following:
1. Adidravida,
2. Adikarnataka
3. Banjara or Lambani
4. Bhovi
5. Koracha
6. Korama
The States re-organization happens on November 1st, 1956. The
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order
1956, comes to be promulgated on 29-10-1956, by the President of
India. The Presidential order earlier notified was modified by
including "Beda (Budga) Jangam" in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Insofar as the State of Mysore is concerned, certain castes were
added in the Districts of Belgaum, Bijapur, Dharwar and Kanara.
Specifically the caste 'Beda (Budaga) Jangam' was added in the
Districts of Gulbarga, Bidar and Raichur. The addition is as follows:
"4. Beda (Budga) Jangam"
(Emphasis supplied)
The Budaga Jangama caste as quoted hereinabove was restricted to
three Districts of Gulbarga, Bidar and Raichur. After about 21 years,
Government of India again modified the list in terms of its
Notification dated 27-07-1977. What comes about in this
notification, is the removal of area restriction, which would mean
that the caste Budaga Jangama or Beda Jangama was not
restrictable only to three Districts of Gulbarga, Raichur or Bidar. In
the said Scheduled Castes list of State of Karnataka, at Sl.No.19
was the caste "Beda Jangam, Budaga Jangam" enlisted. What
would emerge from the removal of area restriction is that, if
persons belonging to Scheduled Castes i.e., Budaga Jangama were
residing earlier in the aforesaid three Districts, if migrated into
other Districts for whatever purpose, they should not lose their
rights as belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is, therefore, the area
restriction was removed in terms of notification dated 27-07-1977.
The history with regard to declaration of Budaga Jangama caste as
Scheduled Caste, is what is narrated hereinabove.
DECLARATION OF BYRAGI:
17. The other list, in the controversy is required to be
noticed. The Government of India has declared list of socially and
educationally backward classes other than the Scheduled Castes
and Tribes by its order dated 09-06-1960. The said notification at
Sl.No.14 depicts a case by name Byragi. It reads as follows:
"14. Devadiga, Moili, Kottari, Badubuduke, Budubudukala,
Bhatraju, Gondaliga, Gondali, Gangethinavaru, Jogi,
Jogar, Kaniyar, Manigar, Dasari, Pandara, Patkar, Byragi,
Dombara, Dommara, Dombari, Garudi, Garudiga,
Modikar, Jatti, Katabu, Kolhati, Kolhatgi, Rachevar ,
Veeramusti, Kalawantula, Koteyar, Sheregar, Male,
Vajantri, Balasanthosi, Natuva, Devadasi, Devli, Bandi,
Padiyar, Siddis of North Kanara District."
The Social Welfare Secretariat of Government of Karnataka passes
an order on 30-03-2002 depicting the castes belonging to other
backward classes other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes making creamy layer applicable to those castes. In the said
list in Category-I at clause (e) depicts 'Byragi' and it reads as
follows:
"(e) Byragi."
(Emphasis supplied)
The aforesaid are the names of two castes that forms the fulcrum of
the conundrum - one Budaga Jangama, Scheduled Caste and the
other Byragi, the other Backward Class. Before considering the test
to determine who could be Budaga Jangama or who could be Byragi
based upon the documents produced in the petition, I deem it
appropriate to consider the applicability of the Government order to
the case of the petitioner.
CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER:
THE FIRST ATTEMPT:
18. The petitioner claims himself to be a person belonging to
Budaga Jangama caste. Until the year 2008, there was no whisper
about Budaga Jangama caste being issued a caste certificate in
Kolar District. For the first time, the petitioner applies for a caste
certificate before the jurisdictional Tahsildar. The jurisdictional
Tahsildar in terms of his endorsement dated 04-04-2008 observes
that the petitioner did not belong to Budaga Jangama caste, as the
Revenue Inspector of Kasaba Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, had verified all
the documents and submitted his report that the petitioner did not
belong to the said caste and, therefore, the endorsement comes to
be issued. The endorsement reads as follows:
£ÀA.eÁw/DzÁAiÀÄ/¹Dgï/18/08-09 vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgïgÀªÀgÀ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ
ªÀÄļÀ¨ÁUÀ®Ä vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ
ªÀÄļÀ¨ÁV®Ä ¢.04-04-2008
«µÀAiÀÄ: ²æà f.ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ©£ï UÉÆëAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀºÉÃgÀÄ ªÀÄdgÁ PÉÆvÀÆÛgÀÄ
UÁæªÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ §ÄqÀÎ dAUÀªÀÄ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ eÁw ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä
PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: (1) ²æà ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ©£ï UÉÆëAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀºÉÃgÀÄ ªÀÄdgÁ PÉÆvÀÆÛgÀÄ
UÁæªÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ Cfð ¢.04-04-2008.
(2) gÁ.¤.PÀ¸À¨Á gÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¢.4-4-2008
»A§gÀºÀ
²æà f.ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ©£ï UÉÆëAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀºÉÃgÀÄ ªÀÄdgÁ PÉÆvÀÆÛgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ gÀªÀgÁzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ
Cfð ¤Ãr ¤ÃªÀÅ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉUÉ ¸Àà¢ð¸À®Ä §ÄqÀÎ dAUÀªÀÄ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÉAzÀÄ eÁw ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä
PÉÆÃjgÀÄwÛÃj. F §UÉÎ ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä gÁd¥Àà ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ PÀ¸À¨Á
ªÀÄļÀ¨ÁV®Ä vÁ. gÀªÀjUÉ gÀªÁ¤¸À¯ÁV, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ G¯ÉèÃR (2)gÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è
CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¨ÉÊgÁV eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÉAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤ªÀÄä ±Á¯Á
zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À°è ¤ÃªÀÅ ¨ÉÊgÁV eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÁVgÀÄwÛÃgÉAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è
£Á£ÀÄ RÄzÁÝV PÀ¸À¨Á gÁd¥Àà ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ AiÀĮĪÀºÀ½î PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀÈvÀÛzÀ
UÁæªÀįÉQÌUÀgÀªÀgÀUÀ¼ÉÆqÀ£É ªÀÄgÀºÉÃgÀÄ ªÀÄdgÁ PÉÆvÀÆÛgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV
¸ÀzÀj UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ d£À vÉ®ÄUÀÄ ¨sÁµÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀ d£ÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EªÀgÀÄ
fêÀ£ÉÆÃ¥ÁAiÀÄPÁÌV UÁæªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr vÀA§Æj »rzÀÄ ¨sÀ«µÀå (±Á¸ÀÛç) ºÉüÀĪÀ PÉ®¸À
ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛ. F d£À §ÄqÀΪÀ£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ
§gÀÄvÉÛ. ªÀÄgÀºÉÃgÀÄ ªÀÄdgÁ PÉÆvÀÆÛgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è §ÄqÀÎ dAUÀªÀÄ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÆ
E®èªÉAzÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ªÀĺÀdgï ºÁUÀÆ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛ.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÉÆÃjzÀAvÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ §ÄqÀÎ dAUÀªÀÄ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÉAzÀÄ
eÁw ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä gÀºÁ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¯Éà EqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
¸À»/- 4/4/08
vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï
ªÀÄļÀ¨ÁUÀ®Ä vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ .
gÀªÀjUÉ
²æà f.ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ©£ï UÉÆëAzÀÄ
ªÀÄgÀºÉÃgÀÄ ªÀÄdgÁ PÉÆvÀÆÛgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ
ªÀÄļÀ¨ÁUÀ®Ä vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ."
(Emphasis added)
The basis for issuance of the said endorsement is the transfer
certificate issued by the school in which the petitioner claims to
have studied, which clearly depicts the petitioner to be belonging to
"Byragi" caste. This endorsement is called in question before this
court in Writ Petition No.5932 of 2008. This Court disposed of the
writ petition in terms of its order dated 12-09-2008 reserving
liberty to the petitioner to question the correctness before the
appropriate authority under Section 3(b) of the Act. The petitioner
then approaches the DCVC who in terms of its proceedings dated
12-04-2008, rejects the appeal filed by the petitioner, by upholding
the order passed by the Tahsildar. The order reads as follows:
".... .... ....
¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgɬĹ vÀªÀÄä CºÀªÁ®ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉüÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À
¤ÃqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¸À¯ÁzÀ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀë ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ «zÁåªÀAvÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀÄ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ¸ÉÃgÀĪÁUÀ ¨ÉÊgÁV JAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä
eÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ±Á¯Á zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉ«UÉ §ÄqÀÎ
dAUÀªÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwAiÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÁßUÀ° CxÀªÁ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwAiÀÄ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÁßUÀ° ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁUÀÆ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ
ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ wêÀiÁð£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
wêÀiÁð£À:-
CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ "¨ÉÊgÁV" eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ EªÀjUÉ "¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw"AiÀÄ
¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ.
¸À»/-
(f.gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ)
f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ,
PÉÆïÁgÀ f¯Éè, PÉÆïÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, eÁw ¥Àj²Ã®£Á ¸À«Äw,
PÉÆïÁgÀ f¯Éè."
(Emphasis added)
The petitioner chose not to proceed further against the said orders.
Thus, the findings of the Tahsildar and the DCVC became final,
depicting that the petitioner belongs to Byragi caste.
THE SECOND ATTEMPT:
19. After about 4 years, the petitioner again springs into
action. This time applies for a fresh caste certificate before the very
Tahsildar who had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for issuance
of a caste certificate. After receipt of the said application, the
petitioner appears to have approached the Deputy Commissioner
seeking certain directions to the Tahsildar for issuance of caste
certificate. All these led to emergence of a caste certificate on
03-04-2012 depicting the petitioner to be belonging to Budaga
Jangama, a scheduled caste. On the strength of the said caste
certificate, the petitioner contested the Legislative Assembly
Elections of Karnataka from 145 - Mulbagal Assembly constituency
as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, emerges victorious
and strangely, finds necessity of securing detailed order passed by
the Tahsildar, while issuing the caste certificate on 03-04-2012 and
by choosing the path of Right to Information Act, applies for the
said detailed order. This results in an endorsement dated
14-03-2013 issued by the Tahsildar reading as follows:
"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
(PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉ)
vÀºÀ²¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÀ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ, ªÀÄļÀ¨ÁUÀ®Ä vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÀÄļÀ¨ÁUÀ®Ä
zÀÆgÀªÁt ¸ÀASÉå - 08159242049
-------------------------------------------------
£ÀA.eÁw¥ÀvÀæ. ¹Dgï 2012-13 ¢£ÁAPÀ-14-03-2013
»A§gÀºÀ
²æà f.ªÀÄÄgÀ½ÃzsÀgï ¸ÀAWÀl£Á PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð ZÀ®ªÁ¢ ªÀĺÁ¸À¨Ás nÃZÀgïì PÁ¯ÉÆä
ªÀÄļÀ¨ÁV®Ä gÀªÀgÁzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ 02-03-2013 gÀAzÀÄ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹ ²æÃ
f.ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï UÉÆëAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀºÉÃgÀÄ (PÉÆvÀÆÛgÀÄ) UÁæªÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Ás ºÉÆç½
ªÀÄļÀ¨ÁV®Ä vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, DzÀ EªÀgÀÄ ºÀÄlÄÖ ¨ÉÊgÁV d£ÁAUÀ, »AzÀĽzÀ ªÀUÀð, ¥ÀæªÀUÀð 1 DzÀ
EªÀjUÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀZÉÃj¬ÄAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 26-11-2010 ¸ÀASÉå JA.AiÀÄÄ.J¯ï
04110115781 gÀAvÉ §ÄqÀÎ dAUÀªÀÄ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÉAzÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ,
¢£ÁAPÀ 15-09-2012 gÀAzÀÄ UÀtPÀ AiÀÄAvÀæzÀ°è CPÀæªÀĪÁV £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀĪÀ eÁw ¥ÀæªiÀ Át
¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀZÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ gÀzÀÄÝ ¥Àr¹zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ²æà f.ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï
UÉÆëAzÀgÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ-03-04-2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå JA.AiÀÄÄ.J¯ï 04112102130 gÀAvÉ
vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀZÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ §ÄqÀÎ dAUÀªÀÄ eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ, CzÀgÀ £ÉÊdvÉAiÀÄ
§UÉÎ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀZÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ºÁUÉãÁzÀgÀÆ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ°è PÀZÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ eÁw
¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃrzÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹gÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä
¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀA¢¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À £ÀPÀ®Ä PÁ¦ PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄwÛÃj.
¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ°è£À PÀvÀqÀ ªÀ», zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ²æÃ
ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï UÉÆëAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀºÉÃgÀÄ (PÉÆvÀÆÛgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ) PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½,
ªÀÄļÀ¨ÁV®Ä vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ EªÀjUÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ §ÄqÀÎ dAUÀªÀÄ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÉ£ÀÄߪÀ eÁw
¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, DzÀgÉ ²æà ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï gÀªÀgÀÄ F »AzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 26-11-
2010 gÀAzÀÄ EzÉà jÃw §ÄqÀÎ dAUÀªÀÄ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÉAzÀÄ eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß CPÀæªÀĪÁV
UÀtPÀAiÀÄAvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß zÀĨsÀð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀȶܹPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, F
¸ÀA¨sÀAzÀ ¥ÀlÖAvÉ F ¸ÀȶܹgÀĪÀ CPÀæªÀÄ eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ ¥Àr¹ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ-15-09-2012 gÀAzÀÄ »A§gÀºÀ ¤Ãr CzÀgÀ°è ²æà f..ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï gÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
PÁgÀtPÀÆÌ ¸ÀzÀj eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸À¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ, G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹zÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è
²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzÀ DUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, FVzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £ÀªÀÄä PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è£À eÁw
¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ-03-04-2012 gÀAzÀÄ f.ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï
©£ï ¯ÉÃmï UÉÆëAzÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ ¥Àj²µÀÜ eÁw §ÄqÀÎ dAUÀªÀÄ eÁw ¥ÀvÀæ «vÀj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ
¸ÀàµÀܪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, DzÀgÉ F »AzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ-26-11-2010 gÀAzÀÄ UÀtPÀAiÀÄAvÀæ zÀĨsÀð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁr eÁw
¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà ¢£ÁAPÀ-03-04-2012 gÀAzÀÄ UÀtPÀ AiÀÄAvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß zÀĨsÀð¼ÀPÉ
ªÀiÁr ¸ÀASÉå-JA.AiÀÄÄ.J¯ï.04112102130 ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀȶܹPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj eÁw
¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀÅ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ C£ÀĸÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw, ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
EvÀgÉà »AzÀĽzÀ ªÀUÀðUÀ¼À (GzÉÆåÃUÀzÀ°è «ÄøÀ¯Áw ªÀÄwÛvÀgÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀ 3(J) ¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀ
CrAiÀÄ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ-03-04-2012
gÀ°è£À §ÄqÀÎ dAUÀªÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÀĨsÀð¼ÀPÉ
ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀȶܹPÉÆArgÀĪÀAvÀºÀzÁÝVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, F ¸ÀA¨sÀAzÀ f.ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï vÀAzÉ ¯ÉÃmï
UÉÆëAzÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¸À®Ä ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄ
PÉÊUÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ JAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÉ."
(Emphasis added)
The fraud that was latent becomes patent. The Tahsildar was
categorical that no such caste certificate depicting the petitioner to
be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste was ever issued by him, and
there were no records found in the office of the Tahsildar, with
regard to issuance of such caste certificate. This becomes a subject
matter of Writ Petition No.17122 of 2013 in which the petitioner
challenge the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar on 14-03-2013.
20. The petitioner had by then emerged victorious in the
elections and had become a legislator, on the strength of a caste
certificate, records of which were nowhere found. Two other writ
petitions were filed challenging the candidature of the petitioner -
one seeking a direction that the petitioner should not be permitted
to function as legislator and the other seeking a writ of quo
warranto against the petitioner in W.P.No.20025 of 2013 and
W.P.No.20026 of 2013 c/w W.P.No.24119 of 2013. Since all the
petitions emerged from one solitary incident of conduct of elections,
on the basis of the caste certificate secured, they were taken up
together and disposed of by an order dated 18-09-2013 as follows:
"27. From the discussions made with reference to all the
three writ petitions, it is clear that this court in these
proceedings cannot come to a definite conclusion with regard to
the caste status of Sri G.Manjunath in a circumstance that it
would have to be decided in the appropriate proceedings viz., an
Election Petition. Such decision is due to the fact that the
electorate have elected Sri G.Manjunath and if at all it is to be
nullified, even if it be on the ground that he does not belong to
Scheduled Caste, it can only be done in such proceedings which
is permissible in law as in the instant proceedings the validity of
caste certificate cannot be extricated from the challenge to the
election. Therefore, though at this juncture, I see no reason to
declare the endorsement dated 14-03-2013 as unsustainable,
neither do I see reason to declare the claim of Sri G.Manjunath
in placing reliance on the caste certificate dated 3-04-2012 as
valid, but is made subject to proof in the Election petition
wherein a challenge is raised in that regard.
28. For all the reasons aforesaid, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition in W.P.No.17122 of 2013, W.P.
Nos. 20025-26/2013 and W.P.No.24119/ 2013 are
all disposed of leaving all issues open for
consideration in the election petition.
(ii) The parties to bear their own costs."
This Court was of the opinion that all these issues will have to be
thrashed out in an election petition. By then, Election Petition in
E.P.No.4 of 2013, had been filed against the petitioner by one N.
Munianjappa. This Court in terms of its order dated 25-04-2018
allowed the election petition, by holding that the petitioner did not
belong to Budaga Jangama caste, but was only a Byragi and
therefore, the conduct of the petitioner in contesting the elections
under the reserved category was on the face of it, illegal. It was
declared that the petitioner belongs to Byragi and had failed to
establish that a caste certificate had been issued by the Tahsildar
on 03-04-2012. This is called in question before the Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No.4533 of 2018 in which the Apex Court initially
passed an order on 30-01-2020 which reads as follows:
"The aforesaid committee shall hear the parties and
permit them to lead oral and documentary evidence. The
enquiry shall be conducted by the Committee according to the
Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointments,
Etc.) Act, 1999. The Committee shall submit its report before
this Court within a period of three months from the date of first
meeting of the Committee on the issue."
The Apex Court directed an inquiry to be conducted into the caste
status of the petitioner according to the Act by the DCVC and the
Committee was directed to submit its report before the Apex Court
within three months from the date of its first meeting. In terms of
the direction of the Apex Court, the DCVC again went into the
exercise of conducting a detailed inquiry into the caste status of the
petitioner. This results in a report of the DCVC dated 27-10-2021
holding that the petitioner did not belong to Budaga Jangama caste,
but was a Byragi. The report was placed before the Apex Court and
the Apex Court in terms of its order dated 19-01-2023, on perusal
of the report, disposed of the civil appeal by the following order:
"In view of the order passed by this court on
30.01.2020, the Committee appointed by the State of
Karnataka has found that the appellant does not belong
to Budaga Jangama which is notified as Scheduled Caste
and belongs to Byragi which is notified as Other
Backward Class in the State of Karnataka.
We find that it will not be appropriate for us to
examine the correctness of the findings of the said
Committee directly in this Court.
It will be appropriate that the appellant to take
recourse of the remedy available under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and challenges the correctness of
the findings of the Committee before the High Court.
We, therefore, dispose of the appeal with liberty to
the appellant to challenge the findings of the committee
in its report dated 27-10-2021.
It is further made clear that while considering the
challenge, the High Court would not be influenced by the
observations made in the impugned order.
If such a proceeding is filed before the High Court
by the appellant, we request the High Court to decide the
same expeditiously."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court observes that it would be appropriate for the
petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available under Article
226 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the
findings of the Committee and disposed of the Civil Appeal
reserving such liberty. While saying so, the Apex Court directs that
this Court shall not be influenced by the observations made in the
election petition supra. It is exercising that liberty, the petitioner
has called in question in this petition the report of the DCVC.
Therefore, it becomes necessary to notice the relevant observations
of the DCVC. The findings of the DCVC qua its germaneness:
"28. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and
perused the records. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
directed this committee for determination whether the
appellant Sri G.Manjunath belongs to "Budaga Jangama" or
whether he belongs to "Byragi" caste of other backward class
in the State of Karnataka. In the light of the specific directions
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India now this
committee has to determine whether the appellant belongs to
Scheduled Caste Budaga Jangama or Backward Class
Category-I Byragi community. After hearing the arguments
and perusing the records this Committee feels that it would be
appropriate to refer to the provisions of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 and
Rules, 1992. The Act contemplates for issuing the caste
certificate under Section 4-A of the Act. Further, under Rule 3-
A of the above said Rules prescribes the manner in which, the
issuance of Income and Caste certificate has to be followed,
which reads as follows:
Issue of Caste Certificate and Income and Caste
Certificate. - (1) Every application for Caste Certificate
of Income and Caste Certificate under Section 4-A shall
be in forms A, B or C as may be appropriate
accompanied by such documents and other materials in
support of the claim.
(2) On receipt of the application, the Tahsildar
shall verify the information, documents and such other
materials furnished by the appellant and on such
verification if he is satisfied with the correctness of the
information, documents and evidence furnished by the
appellant, he shall issue Caste Certificate or Income and
Caste Certificate in Forms D, E & F F as may be
appropriate within two months from the date of the
application.
(3) Where the Tahsildar is not satisfied with the
correctness of the information, documents or other
materials furnished by the appellant he shall then
proceed to hold enquiry as follows:
(a) The Tahsildar shall fix the date of enquiry and
issue notice to the appellant to appear on the
date so fixed along with all documents and other
materials which he desires to produce.
(b) During the course of enquiry he shall examine the
school records, birth registration certificate if any,
and such other relevant records. He shall
examine the appellant if he is present and may
also examine the parent/guardian of the appellant
and any other person who has knowledge of the
social status of the appellant and
parent/guardian;
This committee is of the opinion that other contents in the
same provisions are not necessary to adjudicate the case in
hand.
29. It is undisputed fact that the parents of the
appellant have not obtained the caste certificate
claiming as Budaga Jangama, which is notified as
Scheduled Caste from the date, the said caste is
included in the Scheduled Caste list. However, it is only
the appellant has made an application before the
Tahsildar, Mulbagal. The Tahsildar, Mulbagal, after
considering the factual report of the revenue inspector,
school records and the position in the village taken into
account on a categorical finding has rejected the claim
of the appellant holding that the appellant belongs to
Byragi community and there are no person belonging to
Budaga Jangama in Kottur Village. While rejecting the
application of the appellant it has not been rejected for
want of document as contended by the appellant. In
addition to this, the District Caste Verification
Committee by an order dated 12-04-2008 after taking
note of the claim made by the appellant and also
keeping in view the notification dated 7-09-2004 which
has been issued under Article 16(4) of the Constitution
and also referring to the school records and other
relevant documents has arrived at the conclusion and
held that the appellant belongs to Byragi community
and not Budaga Jangama as claimed by the appellant.
Even this fact has not been disputed by the appellant
herein, who has arraigned as respondent No.1 in his
statement of objections filed before the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in E.P.No.4/2013. In fact, in the
Election Petition No.4 of 2013 the Hon'ble High Court
has also given the same finding. Further, the judgment
relied by the appellant's counsel in the case of Jabar
Singh v. Dinesh and another is of no application to the
facts of the case as rightly pointed out by the learned
senior counsel for the respondent that in the said case,
juvenile justice (Cadre and protection of Children) Act,
2000 Section 49 and Section 7A and other provisions of
the said Act has been dealt, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has no occasion to deliberate the
provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled castes and
Scheduled Tries and other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990 and the
Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, it has no
relevance to the facts of the case in view of the specific
provision referred above supra. Accordingly the
committee is of the opinion that the contention
canvassed by the appellant is not acceptable.
30. With regard to the caste status of the appellant, this
Committee feels that it would be necessary to refer to sub-
Section (5) of Section 4A of the Act, which reads as follows:
"The burden of proving that the candidate or his
parents or guardian belongs to Scheduled Caste or
Schedule Tribe shall be on the applicant."
In the guise of the above provision, this committee after
perusing the records made available before this
Committee and also the arguments advanced by the
learned Senior counsel, the appellant has stated that his
parents were illiterate and they have not obtained the
caste certificate as Budaga Jangama. However, at the
time of admitting the appellant to the school because of
their illiteracy, the caste of the appellant is mentioned
as Byragi. It is not in dispute that at an undisputed
point of time, in the Transfer Certificate of the appellant
and his relatives Gangireddy their caste is mentioned as
Byragi. Further, at column No.9 of the Transfer
Certificate, whether the candidate belong to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it is mentioned as Backward
Tribe. Apart from this, the students studied at Nehru
Kenady Pre-University College, Mulbagal, Kolar District
in secondary school section about 50 names are
furnished by the Deputy Principal, Government Pre-
University College, Mulbagal wherein the caste of all the
15 students, including the appellant and the
respondent No.2 - Venkataraman, their caste is
mentioned as Byragi from Kottur Village, Mulbagal
Taluk.
31. Apart from the above facts,it is not in dispute
that Gangireddy, S/o lae Anjinappa and the appellant
G.Manjunath has filed a civil suit before the Hon'ble
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bulbagal in O.S.No.107
of 2012, though initially a declaration of the caste as
Budaga Jangama was sought the same has been
amended subsequently for a declaration to the
defendant therein to rectify the school records and
indicate the caste as Budaga Jangama in place of
Byragi. In the said plaint, the appellant herein and the
appellant No.2 in the original suit has not stated about
the caste certificate for the purpose of election has
applied by him. On the other hand, he has averred that
the caste certificate is required for employment, as he
was an unemployed and searching for a job. Further, in
the sale deeds dated 28-09-1988, 4.06.1991, 3-08-
1991, 4-03-1993, 3-01-1994, 29.01.1994, 30-08-1995,
14-11-2000 and 28-09-2001 of one Sri Gangadharaiah
father in law of the appellant, Govindu, grand-father of
the appellant, Gangireddy and Anjinappa, uncles of the
appellant, D.Nagaraj, paternal uncle of the appellant,
Lachiram Grand-father of the appellant, Babaiah,
maternal uncle of the appellant, Kullayappa, uncle of
the appellant, Chinna Gopalu, uncle of the appellant,
their caste is voluntarily given as Byragi and in none of
the documents referred supra their caste has been
mentioned as Budaga Jangama.
15. During the midst of the enquiry on 31-07-2011, this
committee was constituted consisting of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, CRE Cell, Joint Director, Department
of Social Welfare, Tahsildar, Mulbagal Taluk and Taluk Social
Welfare Officer, Mulbagal to submit a joint report regarding
the caste status of the appellant. Accordingly, the joint
committee has conducted an enquiry visiting the Kottur village
and submitted the report to this committee. As per the
committee report, it has examined about 7 persons. Out of
which, 4 persons have declared that they belong to Budaga
Jangama caste. 2 persons belongs to Vokkaliga community,
one person belongs to Kuruba community and one person
belongs to Scheduled Caste Adi Karnataka community were
examined. During the enquiry, all the persons have stated that
the customs and mode of their practice. However, they have
categorically stated that right from the year 1950, the State
Government have made several scheme for the purpose of
uplifting the persons belonging to under-privileged to bring
them to the mainstream of the society. However, none of the
witnesses have stated that they have availed any benefits
meant for Scheduled Caste from 1950. Apart from this, they
have also stated that under the Budaga Jangama community,
their caste is also called as Kondamama, Jangama, Jangala,
Sanyasi, Hagalu Veshadari, Byragi and in the school records of
their children, their case is entered as Byragi. Further, the
witnesses have categorically stated that they do not have a
documentary proof to show that prior to obtaining the caste
certificate by the appellant herein as Budaga Jangama, their
community people in the neither said village nor neighbouring
village have obtained Budaga Jangama certificate. The
appellant has not placed any material to establish that they
belong to Budaga Jangama caste. However, only based on the
food habits, customs, traditions, and practices and also
costumes their communities they claim as Budaga Jangama
Scheduled caste.
33. As per the Notification dated 10-08-1950 only 6
communities were declared as Scheduled caste in the
Presidential notification issued in respect of the erstwhile
Mysore State. They are as follows:
(1) Adidravida, (2) Adikarnataka, (3) Banjara or
Lambani, (4) Bhovi, (5) Koracha and (6) Korama.
There was no Budaga Jangama in the erstwhile
State of Mysore. On the other hand, in the erstwhile
State of Hyderabad, Budaga Jangama/Beda Jangama
has been notified as Scheduled Caste. After the State
Re-organization Act, 1956, the Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Modification) Order, 1956 some
of the Districts of Hyderabad viz., Gulbarga, Bidar and
Raichur were part of State of Hyderabad came to be
merged in the State of erstwhile Mysore. Since Beda
Jangama and Budaga Jangama was notified as
Scheduled Caste before merger of some taluks and
districts to Mysore State, after merger of the State with
Mysore State, their castes were deemed to be declared
as Scheduled Castes in the respective area. Thereafter
by virtue of Article 341(2) of the Constitution, the
Scheduled caste order by Act 108/1976 area
restrictions were removed, which came into force with
effect from 27-07-1977. On the other hand in all the
school records and the sale deeds of the relatives of the
appellant till 2001 their caste is mentioned as Byragi,
which is notified as Backward Class Category-I. When
such being the undisputed facts, as per the records
available before this Committee, this Committee feels
that the appellant has failed to prove his caste that he
belongs to Budaga Jangama as required under sub-
Section (5) of Section 4A of the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990.
34. Regarding the Gazetteer pertaining to the Kolar
District relied by the appellant, as rightly pointed by the
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, the
editors and the translators are not the expert anthropologist.
Further in the said Gazetteer, it has been mentioned that in
Mulbagal Taluk of Kolar District their caste are also known as
Mala-Sanyasi and Byragi etc. Further, even the relatives of the
appellant, the appellant and also the witnesses have stated
before the specially constituted committee for submitting the
report, they have categorically admitted hat Budaga Jangama
community people are also called as Byragi, Jangala, Sanyasi.
Admittedly, the said communities viz., Byragi, Jangala,
Sanyasi and Mala-Sanyasis were all classified as Backward
Tribes earlier, after Indra Sahney judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the said castes were treated
as Backward Class Category-I by the State Government for
the purpose of education and appointment under Article 15(4)
and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Even in the Presidential
Notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of
India in respect of Scheduled Caste persons in the State of
Karnataka at Sl.No.19 it is mentioned that Budaga Jangama,
Budga Jangam are notified as Scheduled Caste and there is no
synonyms to that community. Under these circumstances, this
Committee has no jurisdiction or competence to equate
Byragi, Jangala, Sanyasi, Hagaluveshadari and Malasanyasi
communities as synonyms of Budaga Jangama community as
claimed by the appellant herein.
... ... ... ...
CONCLUSION
The committee need to examine the fact of the
occupation, habits, rituals, customs and deities of the
aforesaid two castes and fact of Kolar Gazetteer states
that the persons belonging to 'Budaga Jangama' caste
are also known by names such as 'malasanyasi',
'bairagi', etc., in different part of the State of Karnataka.
After careful examination of written/oral
arguments made by both sides and committee
inspection and interaction in the appellant village the
committee come to the following conclusion. In the
school records of the appellant his caste has been
mentioned as Byragi, but he is claiming that he belongs
to Budaga Jangama, on the ground that the customs,
food habits and the dress they are wearing, marriage
and death ceremonies are conducted like that of Budga
Jangama community, which is not considerable.
Further, the appellant, his relatives and neighbouring
witnesses in the village have categorically stated that
Budaga Jangama are also called Byragi, Jangala,
Sanyasi, Hagalu Veshadari and Mala Sanyasi as
mentioned in Kolar Gazetteer, but appellant had not
produced any documentary evidence of h is or his
father's caste as Budaga Jangama.
In view of the above position, this committee is of the
view that the appellant failed to prove that he belongs to
Budaga Jangama, not eligible for scheduled caste and he
belongs to Byragi caste."
(Emphasis added)
The DCVC upon consideration of elaborate material placed before it
observes that the Tahsildar on verification of records initially had
rendered a categorical finding that the petitioner does not belong to
Budaga Jangama caste and had rejected the caste certificate sought
which was challenged before the DCVC and the Committee again on
12-04-2008 had affirmed the said rejection. It also observes that
the burden of proving that the candidate or his parents or guardian
belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe always on the
person who claims to be so. After such detailed narration, it is the
conclusion of the Committee that the petitioner does not belong to
Budaga Jangama - Scheduled Caste but belongs to Byragi caste.
21. The aforesaid report which was a product of an inquiry
conducted pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court was placed
before the Apex Court upon which the Apex Court in terms of its
order dated 19-01-2023, reserved liberty to the petitioner to
challenge the findings of the DCVC in the impugned report dated
27-10-2021 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. It is, therefore, the challenge to the report before this
Court.
22. The primary contention of challenge of the petitioner is
that the DCVC has completely ignored the Kolar Gazetteer which
clearly depicts persons belonging to Budaga Jangama caste in the
Gazetteer of the year 1939. The Gazetteer is appended to the
petition. According to the petitioner, the Gazetteer depicts persons
of several castes and matastha's in the District of Kolar. The
Gazetteer insofar as it concerns the castes has a preamble which
reads as follows:
"The Indian social organization consists of several castes
and tribes. Though the castes originated due to the
occupational distinctions, gradually they have developed
separate identities. Later several sub-castes were formed within
each caste. While there are certain restriction is on inter caste
relations, there is co-existence among castes upto a limited
periphery. Though there are some similarities among castes in
terms of rituals, traditions, food habits and social ways of life,
the castewise distinctions in customs have resulted in the
complexity of caste system. Some of the castes living in the
present geographical region of Kolar District could be the
original settlers of this land, but the remaining many castes
have settled here in course of time. So a mixture of languages
and cultures are evident here. A study of castes helps to
understand the immigration of various castes in ancient times
and their divisions which evolved in later years. Due to the
various changes occurred in the past independence period all
castes are influenced by the modernization. So it is difficult to
identify the specific feature and traditional characteristics of
every caste. In the foregoing part of this chapter, a brief
description is given of the social and cultural aspects of main
castes of Kolar District."
The author of the Gazetteer indicates that there are several Castes
and Tribes in the District of Kolar which have gradually developed
separate identity. A study of castes helped the author to
understand the immigration of various castes in ancient times and
their divisions which evolved in later years. Due to various changes
occurred in the post independence period all castes are said to have
been influenced by modernization. The author gives a brief
description of social and cultural aspects of main castes of Kolar
District. The narration contains several castes among which Budaga
Jangama caste also finds its narration and the narration insofar as
Budaga Jangama is concerned reads as follows:
"Budaga Jangama: Those who present a folk performance
art called Bura Katha along with an instrument called
'Budaga' (a small drum made of leather) are known as
Budaga Jangamas. Originally they are Telugu speaking
people. They are also known by names such as Mala
sanyasi, Bairagi etc. in different parts of the State. They
go from house to house and perform Hagalu Vesha as a
profession to earn their livelihood. Being nomadic they
are found all over the district. Recently they are showing
a trend of settling in convenient places. They have clan
panchayat to settle disputes. They do not have priestly
classes, neither dowry. But, the bride-price is prevalent
among them. They have a distinct budaya language
without script and have 67 Bedagus which help them to
identify each other. They bury the dead."
(Emphasis supplied)
The sheet anchor of the submission of the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner is that the Kolar Gazetteer and the observations
therein are with regard to persons or existence of persons
belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. This cannot be taken note of
as a foundation or basis to withstand, the stand of the petitioner,
that he belongs to Budaga Jangama caste. The aforesaid Gazetteer
is of the year 1939 which was a Pre-Republic era. On the nation
being governed by the Constitution, constitutional provisions qua
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, that are material require to
be noticed. Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India read
as follows:
"341. Scheduled Castes.--(1) The President may with
respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State,
after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public
notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or
groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the
purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes
in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the
list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under
clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any
caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued
under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent
notification.
342. Scheduled Tribes.--(1) The President may with
respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State,
after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public
notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of
or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the
purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes
in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the
list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under
clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group
within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a
notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by
any subsequent notification."
Article 341 empowers the President of India in respect of any State
or Union territory and where it is a State, after consultation, specify
castes, races or tribes or parts or groups within castes which shall
be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union
territory as the case may be. The Constitution (Schedule Castes)
Order 1950 was notified immediately thereafter. As noticed herein
above, it did not contain the caste, Budaga Jangama. In the year
1956 an amendment Act comes to be promulgated viz., Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes List (Amendment) Order, 1956. It is
here that the caste of Budaga Jangama finds its place in three
Districts of Gulbarga, Raichur and Bidar which come to be
recognized after States Reorganization happens carving out
erstwhile Mysore State to include different areas to come within the
ambit of the new State of Karnataka. Therefore, the order of the
year 1956 does recognize persons of Budaga Jangama caste in the
State of Karnataka but at three places. In the year 1976 owing to
migration the area restriction comes to be removed. Therefore,
persons belonging to Budaga Jangama caste could be in any part of
the State as migrants could be spread over despite their presence
initially in those three Districts in the entire State of Karnataka.
23. Reliance placed on the Kolar Gazetteer, after the nation
being governed by the Constitution, and rights of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes being determined under the Constitution or
the constitutional orders so promulgated from time to time is
misplaced, and too trivial a defence for the petitioner who contested
elections on a caste certificate that was at all times false.
Reference being made to the Constitution Bench judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. MILIND
AND OTHERS1 becomes apposite. The Apex Court in the case of
MILIND has held as follows:
"12. Plain language and clear terms of these articles
show (1) the President under clause (1) of the said articles may
with respect to any State or Union Territory and where it is a
State, after consultation with the Governor, by public
notification specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or
groups within the castes, races or tribes which shall for the
purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union
Territory as the case may be; (2) under clause (2) of the said
articles, a notification issued under clause (1) cannot be varied
by any subsequent notification except by law made by
Parliament. In other words, Parliament alone is competent by
law to include in or exclude a caste/tribe from the list of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes specified in notifications
issued under clause (1) of the said articles. In including castes
and tribes in Presidential Orders, the President is authorised to
limit the notification to parts or groups within the caste or tribe
depending on the educational and social backwardness. It is
permissible that only parts or groups within them be specified
and further to specify castes or tribes thereof in relation to parts
of the State and not to the entire State on being satisfied that it
was necessary to do so having regard to social and educational
backwardness. The States had opportunity to present their
views through Governors when consulted by the President in
relation to castes or tribes, parts or groups within them either in
relation to the entire State or parts of State. It appears that the
object of clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 was to keep away
disputes touching whether a caste/tribe is a Scheduled Caste/
Scheduled Tribe or not for the purpose of the Constitution.
Whether a particular caste or a tribe is Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe as the case may be, within the meaning of the
entries contained in the Presidential Orders issued under clause
(1) of Articles 341 and 342, is to be determined looking to them
as they are. Clause (2) of the said articles does not permit any
(2001) 1 SCC 4
one to seek modification of the said orders by leading evidence
that the caste/Tribe (A) alone is mentioned in the Order but
caste/Tribe (B) is also a part of caste/Tribe (A) and as such
caste/Tribe (B) should be deemed to be a Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe as the case may be. It is only
Parliament that is competent to amend the Orders issued
under Articles 341 and 342. As can be seen from the
entries in the schedules pertaining to each State
whenever one caste/tribe has another name it is so
mentioned in the brackets after it in the schedules. In
this view it serves no purpose to look at gazetteers or
glossaries for establishing that a particular caste/tribe is
a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for the purpose of
Constitution, even though it is not specifically mentioned
as such in the Presidential Orders. Orders once issued
under clause (1) of the said articles, cannot be varied by
subsequent order or notification even by the President
except by law made by Parliament. Hence it is not
possible to say that State Governments or any other
authority or courts or Tribunals are vested with any
power to modify or vary the said Orders. If that be so, no
inquiry is permissible and no evidence can be let in for
establishing that a particular caste or part or group
within tribes or tribe is included in Presidential Order if
they are not expressly included in the Orders. Since any
exercise or attempt to amend the Presidential Order
except as provided in clause (2) of Articles 341 and 342
would be futile, holding any inquiry or letting in any
evidence in that regard is neither permissible nor useful."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court clearly holds that once entries in the schedules
pertaining to each State whenever one caste/tribe has another
name in the brackets after it depicted in the schedules to the said
constitutional orders issued under Articles 341 and 342, it would
serve no purpose to look into the Gazetteers or glossaries for
establishing that a particular caste/tribe is a Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe for the purpose of Constitution even though
it is not specifically mentioned as such in the Presidential orders.
Though the Presidential orders in the case at hand does make a
mention with regard to Budaga Jangama caste, to be a Scheduled
Caste, placing reliance upon a Gazetteer to demonstrate that the
District did contain Budaga Jangama caste would run counter to the
findings of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of MILIND. Therefore, I decline to accept the submission
of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
should be declared to be a Budaga Jangama emerging from Kolar
District on the strength of the Gazetteer, unless there are other
documents in his favour to demonstrate that he did belong to the
said caste notwithstanding the area and its presence being declared
by the constitutional order of the year 1956.
THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DCVC:
24. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in the year 2008 for
the first time when he was aged about 30 years applies for issuance
of a caste certificate declaring him to be belonging to Budaga
Jangama - Scheduled Caste. This comes to be rejected. The order
of rejection is quoted hereinabove. The order of rejection was on
the ground that the Revenue Inspector had conducted an inquiry
and found that there was no evidence to issue a caste certificate in
favour of the petitioner depicting him to be belonging to Budaga
Jangama caste as the inquiry did not find any person of the said
caste in Kolar District. It was not only on that basis the
endorsement was issued but even on the ground that there were no
documents produced by the petitioner. This was challenged by the
petitioner before the DCVC and the DCVC affirmed the order passed
by the Tahsildar rejecting issuance of caste certificate in terms of its
order dated 12-04-2008. These two orders - one by the Tahsildar
and another by the DCVC have become final. The petitioner did not
choose to challenge them but applies for a fresh caste certificate.
Therefore, the first round of rejection has become final. It is the
fresh application and its aftermath that has gone on, before the
Courts till date.
25. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 6 has placed on
record certain documents pertaining to the petitioner. The
documents are the register of admission in the school in which the
petitioner himself claims to have studied of the year 1969-70 and
maintained by the Department of Education, Government of
Karnataka. At Sl.No.16 is the petitioner whose date of birth is
26-08-1978 and the religion and caste is indicated as Byragi. It is
not only the petitioner but there are several students in the school
who were all belonging to Byragi caste. The 2nd document is the
transfer certificate of the petitioner which also depicts him to be
Hindu - Byragi. Several sale deeds are placed on record which all
of the relatives of the petitioner which depict that they belong to
Jangali - Byragi caste. In no document the petitioner or his
relatives have described themselves to be belonging to Budaga
Jangama caste. In the year 2012, the petitioner files a civil suit in
O.S.No.107 of 2012 seeking the following prayer:
"WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble Court
be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the
plaintiffs:
(a) To declare that the plaintiffs caste is "Hindu
Budaga Jangam" and not as Bhairaghi.
(b) To grant consequential relief of mandatory
injunction, directing the defendants and their
subordinate officers concerned to rectify the caste
of the plaintiffs in their school records as "HINDU
BUDAGA JANGAMA" in place of BHAIRAGHI.
(c) To grant of costs of the suit and such other relief as
relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to be
circumstance of the case in the ends of justice and
equity."
(Emphasis added)
The prayer of the petitioner in the civil suit is for a declaration that
his caste is Hindu Budaga Jangama and not Byragi and a
consequential mandatory injunction is sought directing the
defendants and their subordinate officers to rectify the caste of the
plaintiff in the school records as Hindu Budaga Jangama in place of
Byragi. The said suit comes to be dismissed in terms of the order
of the civil Court dated 27-09-2013. The issues framed in the said
suit are as follows:-
"4. Based on the above said pleadings the following
issues were came to be framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is belonged to
the caste of Budaga Jangam?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the school authority
have wrongly mentioned his caste as Bairaghi?
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought by
them?
(Note: Amended as per order on I.A.No.8 - order dated
16-03-2013)
5. What decree or order?"
(Emphasis added)
The first issue concerns whether the plaintiff proves that he belongs
to Budaga Jangama caste. It is held in the negative after recording
elaborate evidence. The petitioner then files an appeal before the
First Appellate Court in R.A.No.303 of 2013. The First Appellate
Court rejects the appeal on the ground that the plaintiffs -
petitioner along with another Mr. Gangareddy have not made out
any ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court. Therefore, the finding against the petitioner even in
the civil suit is that the petitioner does not belong to Budaga
Jangama caste. The findings in O.S.No.107 of 2012 were on the
basis of evidence before the civil Court. The petitioner has not
carried the orders passed against him by civil courts any further.
This is the second of the proceedings that has become final in which
the findings are against the petitioner - the first being the order of
the Tahsildar and the order of the DCVC and the second is the
findings in the civil Court and the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.303 of 2013. Therefore, the petitioner has not produced
any document to demonstrate that he belongs to Budaga Jangama
caste, on the contrary, there are plethora of documents which
clearly depict that the petitioner belongs to Byragi caste.
Therefore, no fault can be found with the findings of the DCVC in
rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he be declared as a person
belonging to Budaga Jangama - a Scheduled Caste.
26. Insofar as the evidence that is let in by the petitioner
before the DCVC is concerned, notwithstanding the fact that all the
persons who have deposed in favour of the petitioner belonged to
the family of the petitioner their evidence is that the customs and
practices that they have been following for ages in Kolar District
depict them to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. It is an
admitted fact that none of the relatives of the petitioner who have
deposed before the DCVC have secured any caste certificate as
belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. It is for the first time before
the DCVC all of them in unison would depose that they belong to
Budaga Jangama caste when they were also known as Byragi,
Jangali, Sanyasi etc. It is on that basis evidence is let in, which in
effect is that they want those castes are also to be known as
Budaga Jangama. The said contention cannot even be accepted, as
the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of MILIND
has clearly held that depiction of caste and issuance of caste
certificate on the basis of synonyms is contrary to the Constitution.
27. The Constitution Bench holds that the castes that can be
declared to be Scheduled Castes are the ones that are declared by
the constitutional orders issued from time to time by the Parliament
and the State Government has no jurisdiction to declare any person
as belonging to Scheduled Caste on the basis of synonyms or those
persons being called by certain other names in the area. The claim
of the petitioner is akin to what is frowned upon by the Constitution
Bench supra, as the petitioner places reliance upon a Government
order issued on 12-01-2016 by the State Government on the basis
of available census, avocation, attire and report of two persons. In
the said list Budaga Jangama finds a place in Annexure-I in terms
of A.J.Sadashiva Commission Report and depicts their avocation to
be Hagalu Vesha, Burrakathe, Byragivesha among other things.
Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is that even Byragis' are to be
considered as Scheduled Caste. If this submission is accepted, it
would run undoubtedly contrary to what the Apex Court has held in
the case of MILIND supra.
28. In conclusion the DCVC holds that there are no
documents produced by the petitioner to demonstrate that he
belongs to Budaga Jangama caste. It also considered the evidence
let in by several relatives of the petitioner, inspected school records
and has rejected the claim that the petitioner belongs to Budaga
Jangama caste on the ground that the customs, food habits and the
dress that they wear or the marriage and death ceremonies that
they undertake are not akin to what Budaga Jangama community
people would undertake. Therefore, no fault can be found with the
reasons rendered by the DCVC as it is in tune with what the Apex
Court has time and again held that on the basis of synonyms or on
the basis of different names being called as one particular caste, a
declaration cannot be made that one belongs to Scheduled Caste
unless the Parliament itself says so.
29. A perusal at the entire documents appended to the writ
petition and the statement of objections would all indicate that the
petitioner and his relatives are either Byragi, Jangala, Sanyasi,
Hagalu Veshadari and Mala Sanyasi, all of which find a mention in
the Kolar Gazetteer which cannot be looked into in the light of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MILIND as accepting
such submission would be accepting that Byragi, Jangala, Sanyasi,
Hagalu Veshadari and Mala Sanyasi are also Scheduled Caste
belonging to Budaga Jangama caste which power this Court does
not have nor the State Government has.
30. If the Parliament does not declare that all these persons
belonging to aforesaid castes, are belonging to Scheduled Caste -
Budaga Jangama, by an edict of this Court, a declaration that the
petitioner belongs to Budaga Jangama caste cannot be done. More
so, in the light of the fact that no documents being placed on record
to show that at any point in time, the petitioner or his relatives had
ever been issued a caste certificate depicting him or them as
belonging to Scheduled Caste - Budaga Jangama caste. Except the
one that is allegedly issued on 03-04-2012 in favour of the
petitioner, there is no other document produced by the petitioner to
depict him to be belonging to Budaga Jangama - Scheduled Caste.
The order of the DCVC does not warrant any interference at the
hands of this Court as it is rendered on reasons that are cogent. It
is clear case that the petitioner contested the election on a caste
certificate, which was on the face of it false and becomes a law
maker even, by stealing away a constituency that was meant to a
person genuinely belonging to a scheduled caste. It is this act that
fringes on the borders of fraud on the Constitution. Therefore,
action against the petitioner must ensue, which I leave it open to
the State to initiate, bearing in mind the observations made in the
course of the order, in accordance with law.
31. In the result, finding no merit in the petition, the petition
would necessarily meet its rejection and it is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkp
CT:SS
