The State Of Karnataka And Ors vs Ravindra Swamy And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 851 Kant

                                           W.A.No.200065/2022


                           1


           THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

                       PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
                         AND
      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI

      WRIT APPEAL NO.200065/2022 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
     DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
     M.S.BUILDING
     2ND FLOOR
     BENGALURU-560 001.

2.   THE COMMISSIONER
     DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
     5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BENGALURU-560 001.

3.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
     BIDAR DISTRICT, D.C OFFICE
     BIDAR-585 401.

4.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     BIDAR, D.C OFFICE
     BIDAR-585 401.

5.   THE TAHSILDAR
     BIDAR TALUKA, BIDAR-585 401.          ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI C.JAGADISH. SPL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
                                           W.A.No.200065/2022


                             2



AND:

1.     SRI RAVINDRA SWAMY
       S/O KALLAYYA SWAMY
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
       R/O H.NO.8-11-254
       RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
       BIDAR-585 401

2.     THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
       NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, KSCMF BUILDING
       CUNNINGHAM ROAD
       BENGALURU-560 001.

3.     KARNATAKA STATE DALITHA SANGHARSHA
       SAMITHI (REGD), BIDAR
       REPRESENTED BY THE STATE ORGANISING CONVENOR
       MARUTHI BOUDHI
       S/O BASAPPA
       AGED 55 YEARS
       R/O AMBEDKAR COLONY
       BVB COLLEGE ROAD, BIDAR          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAVI B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SMT. ARUNDATI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
    NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH V/O/D:11.04.2022)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25.02.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN W.P.NO.200002/2020(GM-CC).

     THIS WRIT APPEAL PERTAINING TO KALABURAGI BENCH
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.11.2022 COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
K.S.MUDAGAL J., SITTING AT PRINCIPAL BENCH THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCING DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                      W.A.No.200065/2022


                                  3


                           JUDGMENT

Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.200002/2020(GM-CC), the State/Authorities have

preferred the above appeal. By the impugned order, the

learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by

present respondent No.1 and quashed the notice dated

18.12.2019 issued by appellant No.3 herein.

2. For the purpose of convenience the parties will

be referred to henceforth according to their ranks in the

writ petition.

3. The Central Government by an extraordinary

Gazette Notification dated 29.10.1956 under Section 41 of

the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 included Beda

(Budga) Jangam community as the Scheduled Caste. The

Government of Karnataka on 27.07.1977 included Beda

Jangam, Budga Jangam at Sl.No.19 of list of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes. On 23.02.2004 the Director

of Census Operations, Karnataka issued the census report W.A.No.200065/2022

for the year 1991 reflecting the existence of Beda Jangam

community in Bidar District.

4. On 26.04.2016 the petitioner submitted an

application before the Tahsildar, Bidar/respondent No.6

claiming that he belongs to Beda Jangam/ Scheduled Caste

and sought caste certificate accordingly. Respondent No.6

by order dated 20.05.2016 rejected the said application.

The appeal filed by the petitioner against such order was

rejected by respondent No.5 on 08.05.2017. Challenging

that order, the petitioner filed revision petition before

respondent No.4. W.P.No.203713/2017 filed by the

petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 08.08.2017

directing respondent No.4 to dispose of the revision

petition within four months.

5. On 23.03.2018 respondent No.4 dismissed the

said revision petition holding that the petitioner does not

belong to Beda Jangam caste. On 27.03.2018 State

Government issued notification declaring the Assembly

Election in the State and reserved Aurad-B constituency for W.A.No.200065/2022

the Schedule Caste. On 05.04.2018 respondent No.1 again

made application seeking Beda Jangam caste certificate for

purpose of election. In the enquiry on 10.04.2018 the

Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector submitted joint

report. Respondent No.5 by order dated 13.04.2018

relying on the Deputy Commissioner's order dated

23.03.2018 rejected the said application. Against that

order, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.201303-04/2018 (GM-

CC). However, he withdrew W.P.No.201304/2018. This

Court by order dated 21.01.2019 allowed

W.P.No.201303/2018 and quashed the order of respondent

No.5 and remanded the matter to respondent No.6

Tahsildar to reconsider the matter on the ground that

respondent No.5 has not considered the joint report of the

Tahsildar dated 13.04.2018.

6. The Tahsildar/respondent No.6 by order dated

01.04.2019 again rejected the said application. Against

that order the petitioner filed W.P.No.202022/2019. This

Court by order dated 17.06.2019 allowed the said writ W.A.No.200065/2022

petition directing respondent No.6 to reconsider the claim

of the petitioner on the ground that despite the order in

W.P.No.201303/2018 respondent No.6 has not referred to

the report dated 13.04.2018. Respondent No.6 by order

dated 23.08.2019 allowed the application of the petitioner

holding that the petitioner belongs to Beda Jangam (SC

community) and is entitled to certificate to that effect.

Accordingly on 27.08.2019 caste certificate was issued to

the petitioner.

7. One Maruthy Boudhe filed a complaint before

respondent No.4 alleging that though the petitioner

belongs to Lingayatha caste, misusing the term Beda

Jangam has obtained a caste certificate accordingly. He

sought for cancellation of caste certificate issued to the

petitioner. Respondent No.4 exercising revisional power

under Section 4-F of Karnataka Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes

(Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 ('the Act, W.A.No.200065/2022

1990' for short) issued notice dated 18.12.2019 to the

petitioner seeking his defence in that matter.

8. The petitioner filed W.P.No.200002/2020 (GM-

CC) before the learned Single Judge seeking quashing of

the notice dated 18.12.2019. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6

contested the said petition filing the statement of

objections. Maruthy Boudhe, S/o Basappa had filed

complaint before the Deputy Commissioner alleging that

Ravindra Swamy has obtained caste certificate by playing

fraud. However, in the writ petition filed by Mr.Ravindra

Swamy he had not impleaded the said complainant as

party respondent. Therefore, on 21.02.2022 Maruthy

Boudhe filed an application to implead him as respondent

in the case. The learned Single Judge by the impugned

order allowed the writ petition and dismissed the said

application.

Submissions of Sri C.Jagadeesh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt. Y.Arundhathi, learned Counsel for respondent No.3- Maruthi Boudhe:

9. Ravindra Swamy belongs to Veerashaiva

Lingayatha Jangama Community which is an upper caste.

W.A.No.200065/2022

Suppressing the said fact and in collusion with the

Revenue officials, he has managed to obtain the Scheduled

Caste Certificate. The Tahsildar was incorrect in saying

that in writ petition No.200002/2020(GM-CC) there is a

direction to issue caste certificate. Learned Tahsildar was

swayed away by the order in W.P.No.200002/2020(GM-

CC). Ravindra Swamy though preferred the writ petition

against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in

rejecting the application in the earlier occasion, withdrew

the petition with leave to file appeal. However, he did not

prefer any appeal. There is no merit in his contention that

to the caste certificate issued for the purpose of contesting

the election, Act 1990 and Rules framed thereunder are

not applicable. The caste certificate itself was under Rule

3-A of the Rules in Form-D. Therefore it is not open to him

to claim that the said Act is not applicable. Since the caste

certificate was applied and issued under Act 1990 and the

Rules framed thereunder, Section 4F of the Act has

conferred the jurisdiction on the Deputy Commissioner to

exercise the revisional powers. In exercise of such W.A.No.200065/2022

revisional powers the Deputy Commissioner has issued

notice. By such notice, no right of the petitioner Ravindra

Swamy was affected. He could have appeared before the

Deputy Commissioner and made his defence. Having

regard to such remedies the writ petition itself was

premature and not maintainable. As held by the Supreme

Court, it is the Deputy Commissioner and Caste

Verification Committee who are entitled to enquire into the

Caste Certificate, the Court cannot do that exercise.

Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prabhudev

Mallikarjunaiah Vs Ramachandra Veerappa1 has accepted

the findings of the High Court that Lingayatha Veerashaiva

Jangama is not 'Beda Jangam' a Scheduled Caste. The

learned Single Judge has failed to advert to such material

and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts

of the case. The learned Single Judge failed to note that

Ravindra Swamy with an intention to grab an order behind

the back of the complainant filed the writ petition without

impleading the complainant. Learned Single Judge was in

AIR 1996 SC 962 W.A.No.200065/2022

error in rejecting the impleading application, therefore

they seek dismissal of the petition. In support of their

submissions they relied on the following judgments:

i. State of Maharastra and ors Vs Raviprakash Babulal Singh Parmar and another2 ii. Union of India & anr Vs Kunishetty Satyanarayana3 iii. Bharathi Reddy Vs State of Karnataka and others4 iv. G.Manjunatha Vs Muninanjappa and others5

Submissions of Sri Ravi B Patil, learned Cousnel for respondent No.1 Ravindraswamy:

10. In Writ Petition No.202022/2018 this Court set

aside the order of the Tahsildar rejecting Ravindra

Swamy's application for grant of caste certificate relying on

the judgment in Kulkarni Geeta M.Vs State of

Karnataka6 and directed the Tahsildar to consider the

report of the Revenue Inspector and others. Despite such

directions, the Tahsildar again rejected the application

(2007) 1 SCC 80

(2006) 12 SCC 28

2018 (6) SCC 162

Civil Appeal No.4533/2018

ILR 1996 KAR 2672 W.A.No.200065/2022

which became the subject matter of W.P.No.202022/2019.

In W.P.No.202022/2019 positive direction was issued to

the Tahsildar to consider the claim of the Ravindra Swamy

in terms of the order in the said writ petition as well as the

earlier order in W.P.No.201303/2018. In compliance with

such direction, the Tahsildar issued the caste certificate on

27.08.2019. The Deputy Commissioner issuing the notice

purportedly under Section 4-F of the Act, 1990 amounts to

over reaching such orders of the High Court. Therefore,

Ravindra Swamy was forced to file W.P.No.200002/2020.

Learned Single Judge relying on the earlier judgments of

this Court and judgments of Supreme Court, considering

the records and panchanama dated 10.04.2018 allowed

the writ petition on merits. Therefore, the Deputy

commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue such notice.

There are no grounds to interfere with order of the learned

Single Judge. The caste certificate was obtained for the

purpose of contesting the election. Therefore, the Act,

1990 which applies for issuing the certificates the purpose W.A.No.200065/2022

of reservation in education and employment is not

applicable.

11. In support of his submissions he relies on the

following judgments:

i) Chikkanna vs.District Social Welfare Officer &

Member Secretary7

ii) Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka & ors8

iii) Kum.Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commssioner,

Tribal Development and others9

iv) Sangeetha vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10

12. On consideration of the submissions of both

side, material on record and the legal principles relied on

the learned counsel on both side the questions that arise

for consideration are:

1. Whether the orders in W.P.No.201303/2018

and W.P.202022/2019 barred the Deputy

W.P.No.13173/2008 DD 23.01.2009

W.P.No.14201/2018 DD 23.08.2019

AIR 1995 SC 94

W.P.No.36482/2019 DD 20.08.2019 W.A.No.200065/2022

Commissioner from issuing the notice exercising

the powers under Section 4F of the Act?

2. Whether Act 1990 and Rules made there

under are applicable to the caste certificate issued

to Ravindra Swamy?.

3. Whether the writ petition filed by the

Ravindra Swamy was maintainable?

ANALYSIS

Reg. the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4-F of the Act (Point No.1)

13. The prime contention of respondent No.1

Ravindra Swamy is that the learned Single Judges of this

Court in W.P.No.201303/2018 and W.P.No.202022/2019

had issued a positive direction to the Tahsildar to issue

caste certificate. According to them, those orders barred

the Deputy Commissioner from exercising the revisional

jurisdictional under Section 4F of the Act, 1990.

Therefore, this Court has to see whether there was any

such positive direction in the orders passed by this Court

in those writ petitions.

W.A.No.200065/2022

14. Some of the admitted facts are that Ravindra

Swamy filed similar application on 26.04.2016 before the

Tahsildar seeking caste certificate. He made that

application under the provisions of Act 1990 and Rules

1992 only. Ravindra Swamy unsuccessfully challenged

such rejection of the application by the Tahsildar, before

the Assistant Commissioner in the appeal and before the

Deputy Commissioner in the Revision Petition. Admittedly

the appeal was dismissed on 08.05.2017 and the Revision

Petition was dismissed on 15.05.2017.

W.P.No.203713/2017 was disposed of on 08.08.2017

directing the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the

Revision Petition pending before him within four months.

Even thereafter the Deputy Commissioner by order dated

23.03.2018 rejected the Revision Petition of the petitioner.

15. Again on 05.04.2018 Ravindra Swamy filed

application for Beda Jangama of Caste Certificate for the

purpose of election. Admittedly the Tahsildar rejected that

application on 13.04.2018 based on order of the Deputy W.A.No.200065/2022

Commissioner dated 23.03.2018. Ravindra Swamy

challenged the order of the Tahsildar in W.P.201303/2018

and order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 23.03.2018

in W.P.No.201304/2018. The judgment in W.P.No.201303-

304/2018 (GM CC) dated 21.01.2019 clearly shows that

Ravindra Swamy withdrew W.P.No.201304/2018 which

related to the challenge to the order of the Deputy

Commissioner dated 23.03.2018 with liberty to challenge

the said order in separate proceedings. However, it is not

even the case of the Ravindra Swamy that he filed any

subsequent proceedings challenging the order of the

Deputy Commissioner dated 23.03.2018. Therefore, that

order operates even to this day.

16. The judgment in W.P.No.201303/2018 dated

21.01.2018 by no stretch of imagination indicate that any

positive direction was issued to the authorities/Tahsildar to

issue Caste Certificate. It is only said in the order that

though the village Accountant and Revenue Inspector,

Bidar submitted a report/panchanama dated 10.04.2018, W.A.No.200065/2022

on 13.04.2018 the Tahsildar has not considered the same.

Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar with

a direction that the Tahsildar shall reconsider the claim of

the petitioner taking into consideration the report of the

Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector, Bidar

submitted on 10.04.2018.

17. After such remand the Tahsildar passed

another order dated 01.04.2018 wherein he stated that

Ravindra Swamy belongs to Halahalli village of Bidar Taluk.

It was further stated that instead of producing records

relating to Halahalli village, Ravindra Swamy produced the

report issued by Revenue Inspector Bidar. Giving such

reason and considering other material placed before him,

the Tahsildar by order dated 01.04.2019 rejected the said

application. Ravindra Swamy challenged that order before

this Court in W.P.202022/2019 (GM CC).

18. The learned Single Judge of this Court by order

dated 17.06.2019 in W.P.No.202022/2019 (GM CC) took

an exception to the order of the Tahsildar dated W.A.No.200065/2022

01.04.2019 on the ground that the Tahsildar has not

complied the earlier order of the learned Single Judge in

W.P.Nos.201303-304/2018. In the body of the order

dated 01.04.2019 though the Tahsildar referred to the

report/mahazar of Village Accountant/Revenue Inspector,

Bidar dated 10.04.2018, the same was not specifically

mentioned in the reference column of the order in the top.

Therefore, it appears the learned Single Judge lost sight of

the reference to the report dated 10.04.2018 in the body

of the order. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge

remanded the matter to the Tahsildar to reconsider the

claim of the petitioner with reference to the report dated

10.04.2018. Though the learned Single Judge made very

sharp observations against the Tahsildar warning him of

serious action if the order is not strictly complied, still

there is no specific direction in the said order that the

Tahsildar shall issue Caste Certificate to the petitioner.

19. After such order in W.P.No.202022/2019 (GM-

CC) the Tahsildar issued the order dated 23.08.2019 to W.A.No.200065/2022

issue Caste Certificate to Ravindra Swamy and issued

certificate to the effect that he belongs to Beda Jangama

community a Scheduled Caste. In that order the Tahsildar

did not consider what happens to the order of the Deputy

Commissioner dated 23.03.2018 which has attained

finality. One can also infer the effect of warning in the

order in W.P.No.202022/2019 to the Tahsildar, regarding

initiation of contempt.

20. Subsequent to that one Maruthi Boudhe filed

petition before the Deputy Commissioner claiming that

Ravindra Swamy does not belong to BedaJangama

community a Scheduled Caste and has obtained a false

certificate using the name of Beda Jangama. Therefore,

the Deputy Commissioner acting under Section 4-F of the

Act, 1990 issued the notice dated 18.12.2019 (which was

challenged before the learned Single Judge) to Ravindra

Swamy to appear before him and substantiate his claim.

The learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise that

the notice dated 18.12.2019 runs contrary to the orders of W.A.No.200065/2022

learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.201303-304/2018 and

W.P.No.202022/2019.

21. As already pointed out, in those two writ

petitions, there is no positive direction as contended by the

counsel for Ravindra Swamy to issue a caste certificate.

Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that issuance

of notice under Section 4-F of the Act, 1990 by the Deputy

Commissioner exercising the revisional jurisdiction

overreaches the said order.

22. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the

scope of issuance of the certificate and the revisional

powers. Section 4-A of the Act deals with the issue of

Caste certificate and Income and Caste Certificate and

Section 4-C deals with the verification of Caste Certificate

and Income and Caste Certificate. Section 4-F deals with

the powers of Deputy Commissioner in revisional

jurisdiction.

W.A.No.200065/2022

23. Section 4-A, 4-C and 4-F of the Act, 1990 read

as follows:

4-A. Issue of Caste Certificate and Income and Caste Certificate.-

(1) Any candidate or his parent or guardian belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes may, in order to claim benefit of reservation under Section 4, either for appointment to any service or post or for admission to a course of study in a University or any educational institution make an application to the Tahsildar in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed for issue of a Caste Certificate.

(2) Any candidate or his parent or guardian belonging to Other Backward Classes may, in order to claim benefit of reservation under Section 4, either for appointment to any service or post or for admission to a course of study in University or any Educational Institution, make an application to the Tahsildar in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed for issue of an Income and Caste Certificate.

(3) The Tahsildar may on receipt of an

application under sub-section (1) or (2) , and after

holding such enquiry as he deems fit and satisfying

himself regarding the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant pass an order issuing a caste certificate or, as the case may be, an income W.A.No.200065/2022

and caste certificate in such form as may be prescribed, or rejecting the application.

(4) The Tahsildar shall follow such

procedure as may be prescribed before passing the

order under sub-section (3).

(5) The burden of proving that the

candidate or his parent or guardian belongs to

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes shall be on the applicant.

4-C. Verification of Caste Certificate and Income and Caste Certificate.-

(1) The State Government shall constitute one or more verification committees for each district consisting of such person or persons as may be prescribed for verification of caste certificate and income and caste certificate issued under Section 4-A or Section 4-B.

(2) Any person who has obtained a caste certificate or an income and caste certificate under Section 4-A or A-B or the Appointing Authority or any authority making admission to a course of study in the University or any Educational Institution may make an application to the verification committee in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed for issue of a validity certificate.

(3) The verification committee may after holding such enquiry as it deems fit within thirty W.A.No.200065/2022

days from the date of the application either grant a validity certificate in a prescribed from or reject the application.

4-F. Revision by Deputy Commissioner.-

(1) The Deputy Commissioner may at any time either suomoto or on an application made to him with in the prescribed period, call for and

examine the records relating to any decision made or order passed by the Tahasildar under Section 4A or the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4B, for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the legality, propriety of such decision or order and if,

in any case, it appears to the Deputy Commissioner that any such decision or order shall be modified, annulled, revised or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders within thirty days accordingly;

Provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall not pass any order prejudicial to any person unless such person is given an opportunity of being heard.

(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, stay the execution of any such decision or order pending the exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof.

24. Reading of the above provisions clearly show

that the revisional powers of the Deputy Commissioner is

independent of the powers of District Caste Verification W.A.No.200065/2022

Committee under Section 4-C. Therefore remand of

matters to the Tahsildar by the High Court for

reconsideration of issuance of Caste Certificate itself will

not oust/bar the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner

to exercise the powers under Section 4F of the Act, 1990.

That can be narrated by an illustration. Suppose against

the decree of the Civil Judge in a suit or the First Appellate

Court, if the High Court in a second appeal remands the

matter to the trial Court i.e., Civil Judge for

reconsideration and Civil Judge passes an order, that does

not oust the jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court. The

aggrieved party can file an appeal before the First

appellate Court. What is the merit of the appeal has to be

considered by the First Appellate Court. But, it cannot be

said that the appeal itself is barred.

25. Under the circumstances, the learned Single

Judge fell in error in holding that the revisional jurisdiction

of the Deputy Commissioner was totally barred/ousted by W.A.No.200065/2022

virtue of orders in W.P.Nos.201303-304/2018 and

W.P.No.202022/2019.

Reg. the applicability of Act 1990 and Rules 1992 (Point No.2)

26. Relying on the judgment of this Court in

Chikkanna's case referred to supra, Sri Ravi B Patil,

learned Counsel vehemently argued that Act 1990 and

Rules 1992 apply only to the caste certificates obtained for

the purpose of reservation for appointments in civil

services and public sector employment and for admission

in educational institutions, but Ravindra Swamy obtained

caste certificate for the purpose of contesting the election.

Therefore Act 1990 and Rules 1992 are not applicable. He

submits that consequently the Deputy Commissioner

cannot invoke the revisional jurisdictional under Section 4

of the Act. The reading of the judgment in Chikkanna's

case shows that the petitioner therein on getting the caste

certificate for the purpose of Elections produced the same

before the concerned and contested the election for a W.A.No.200065/2022

constituency reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidate.

In the case on hand, Ravindra Swamy has not produced

that certificate before any Election Authorities nor

contested the Elections based on that. Further the

judgment in W.P.No.203713/2017 (GM-CC) dated

08.08.2017 shows that Ravindra Swamy in that petition

claimed that he is securing the said document for the

purpose of education of his son. The submissions of

Ravindra Swamy's Counsel extracted in para 2 of the said

judgment read as follows:

"2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had filed a petition for issuance of caste certificate, declaring that he belongs to Beda Jangama Caste and the authorities i.e., both Tahasildar and Assistant Commissioner have rejected his request. Hence he has preferred a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner and same is pending. He would submit that there is urgency for consideration of his request for issuance of caste as his son is pursuing II P.U. If disposal is delayed, the son of petitioner may not be able to enjoy the advantage and benefit conferred on the said caste group."

(Emphasis supplied) W.A.No.200065/2022

27. The learned Single Judge in that case directed

the Deputy Commissioner to consider the revision petition

of Ravindra Swamy in a time bound manner. The relevant

portion relating to that in para 3 of the said judgment

reads as follows:

"3. ............................................ Looking into the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is right in contending that there is urgency, in the light of the fact that his son who is pursuing his II P.U. Course is successful and if certificate is not issued in time, his son may not be benefited from the caste certificate if issued belatedly. If that be so, it is seen that the petitioner

urging urgency on account of his son pursuing II P.U. and with exams likely to get over in the academic year 2018, the caste certificate would be of no avail if issued belatedly."

(Emphasis supplied)

28. Suppressing such fact before the learned

Single Judge, Ravindra Swamy claimed that Act, 1990 is

not applicable. Since there was reference to

W.P.No.203713/2017 (GM-CC) in the records, this Court

collected the said judgment from the e-court's website and W.A.No.200065/2022

the aforesaid fact was unearthed. That clearly goes to

show that Ravindra Swamy is guilty of suggestio falsi and

suppressio veri. It is also to be noted that Ravindra Swamy

himself applied to the caste certificate in Form A as per

Rule 3-A(1) and secured the certificate in Form D as per

Rule 3-A(2)(3). In the earlier rounds when Tahsildhar

rejected his application for caste certificate he filed appeal

under Section 4-B before the Assistant Commissioner and

on rejection of such appeal by the Assistant Commissioner,

filed revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner

under Section 4-F of the Act. Under the aforesaid

circumstances he is estopped from denying the

applicability of the act 1990 and Rules 1992.

29. When the matter was remanded to the Deputy

Commissioner in W.P.No.203713/2017 (GM-CC), he did

not raise the contention that the Act is not applicable and

the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction. Under the

circumstances, the judgment in Chikkanna's case cannot

be justifiably applied to the facts of the present case. It is W.A.No.200065/2022

also to be noted that the title of the Act is Karnataka

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward

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

the Act was only for the purpose of education and

employment, the word 'etc.' would not have been used in

the title of the Act. It cannot be presumed that word in the

statute is superfluously or redundantly used. Therefore it

has to be concluded that the certificate obtained under the

Act 1990 and the Rules 1992 for the purpose other than

education and employment are also governed by the

provisions of the Act and the Rules.

30. The above narrated facts clearly show that

Ravindra Swamy is changing his stance from case to case

only to suit his convenience. They further show that

diverting the statutory channels under Section 4-B to 4-F

of the Act, he is approaching this Court again and again

and suppressing some facts by unfair means succeeded in

such petitions. Thereby he has diverted the judicial time of

this Court and abused the process of the Court. Such W.A.No.200065/2022

practice shall be deprecated by imposing heavy costs.

There is no merit in the contention that the Act, 1990 and

the Rules, 1992 are not applicable to the Caste certificate

in question. The finding of the learned Single Judge in that

regard is erroneous.

Reg. maintainability of the writ petition( Point No.3)

31. The appellants claimed that Ravindra Swamy

could appear before the Deputy Commissioner in the

revision petition and defend his case, the writ petition was

prematured and not maintainable. Whereas Ravindra

Swamy contended that in view of the orders of this Court

in W.P.No.201303/2018 and 202022/2019, the jurisdiction

of the Deputy Commissioner was barred. Therefore, it

was contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner

was without jurisdiction and the writ petition

No.200002/2020 (GM CC) before the learned Single Judge

was maintainable. In view of the findings on point No.1

that Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction was not barred

and the certificate issued in his favour was covered under W.A.No.200065/2022

the Act, 1990 and Rules, 1992 the said contention of

Ravindra Swamy is not sustainable. Therefore, the learned

Single Judge fell in error in entertaining the writ petition.

32. Under the above facts and circumstances,

suffice it to state that the other judgments relied on by the

learned counsel for Mr.Ravindra Swamy are not applicable

to the facts of the present case. In view of the above

observations and conclusions, the appeal deserves to be

allowed with costs. Hence the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed with costs.

      ii)    The impugned order of the learned Single

             Judge         dated         25.02.2022             in

W.P.No.200002/2020 (GM CC) is hereby set

aside.

iii) W.P.No.200002/2020 is hereby dismissed with

costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable to Karnataka

State Legal Services authority.

W.A.No.200065/2022

iv) The costs shall be paid/deposited within 30

days from the date of this order. Otherwise,

KSLSA is entitled to recover the same in

accordance with law.

    v)    Forward the copy of this order to the Member

          Secretary,   KSLSA     for     the     needful.




                                        Sd/-
                                       JUDGE




                                        Sd/-
                                       JUDGE

Akc/KSR