Karnataka High Court
Prabhu Chavan vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 13 January, 2023
Bench: K.S.Mudagal, Anil B Katti
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
1 W.A.Crob.No.200001/2022
IN 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.200032/2022 (GM-CC)
C/w
WRIT APPEAL No.200031/2022 (GM-CC)
WRIT APPEAL CROB. No.200001/2022
W.A.No.200032/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI PRABHU CHAVAN
S/O BAMLA CHAVAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT PANCHAYAT NO.104
BONTI THANDA, (GHUMSAIBAI THANDA)
AURAD-B, BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 326 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.GANESH S KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
2 W.A.Crob.No.200001/2022
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR DISTRICT
BIDAR D.C. OFFICE
BIDAR - 585 401
4. SRI VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O KOUDIYAL
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT IERBHAG
BASAVAKALYANA
BIDAR - 585 327 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K NAVADGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
SRI C.JAGADISH, SPL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3
SRI G.K.BHAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.HULEPPA HEROOR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION NO.226907/2020 DATED 01.02.2022 AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
W.A.No. 200031/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI PRABHU CHAVAN
S/O BAMLA CHAVAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND SOCIAL SERVICE
R/AT PANCHAYAT NO.104
BONTI THANDA, (GHUMSAIBAI THANDA)
TALUK: AURAD-B
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 326 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI GANESH S KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR DISTRICT
BIDAR D.C. OFFICE
BIDAR - 585 401
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
3 W.A.Crob.No.200001/2022
2. THE TAHSILDAR
AURAD - B, BIDAR TALUK
BIDAR - 585 401
3. THE COMMISSIONER
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
4. THE DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL
RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
5. SRI RAVINDRA SWAMY
S/O KALLAYYA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT H.NO.8-11-254
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
BIDAR - 585 401 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K NAVADGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
SRI C.JAGADISH, SPL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4
SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION NO.225917/2020 DATED 01.02.2022 AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
W.A.CROB. No.200001/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI RAVINDRA SWAMY
S/O KALLAYYA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT H.NO.8-11-254
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
BIDAR - 585 401 ...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE)
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
4 W.A.Crob.No.200001/2022
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR, D.C. OFFICE
BIDAR - 585 401
2. THE TAHSILDAR
AURAD - B, BIDAR TALUK
BIDAR - 585 401
3. THE COMMISSIONER
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
4. THE DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL
RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
5. SRI PRABHU CHAWAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND SOCIAL SERVICE
R/AT PANCHAYAT NO.104
BONTI THANDA, (GHUMSAIBAI THANDA)
TALUK: AURAD-B
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 326 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K NAVADGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
SRI C.JAGADISH, SPL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4
SRI ASHOK HARANALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI GANESH S KALBURGI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 41 RULE 22 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IMPUGNED DATED 01.02.2022
PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.225917/2020 INSOFAR IT RELATES
TO REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE DISTRICT CASTE
VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, BIDAR FOR FRESH ENQUIRY AND
CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE CROSS OBJECTION BY SETTING
ASIDE THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
IN FAVOUR OF 5TH RESPONDENT BEARING DOCUMENT NO.RD
NO.0034135000602 DATED 10.04.2013.
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
5 W.A.Crob.No.200001/2022
THESE WRIT APPEALS AND WRIT APPEAL CROSS OBJECTION
PERTAINING TO KALABURAGI BENCH HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 09.11.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., SITTING AT PRINCIPAL
BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals arise out of the common order dated
01.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.225917/2020 c/w W.P.No.226907/2020 (GM-CC).
2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge
quashed the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the District
Caste Verification Committee, Bidar (for short 'DCVC') and the
order dated 31.03.2020/10.04.2020 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Bidar rejecting the revision petition of
Ravindraswamy. Further the learned Single Judge has
remanded the matter to DCVC to adjudicate case No.C &
V/CR-98/2016-17 afresh.
3. The petitioner in W.P.No.225917/2020(GM-CC)
has filed W.A.Cross objection No.200001/2022 assailing the
order of remand.
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
4. In W.P.No.225917/2020 (GM-CC) Ravindra Swamy
was the petitioner, Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, Tahsildar
Aurad B Taluk, the Commissioner of Social Welfare
Department, the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement were
respondent Nos.1 to 4 respectively and the appellant Prabhu
Chavan was respondent No.5.
5. In W.P.No.226907/2020 (GM-CC) Vijay Kumar
S/o. Koudiyal was the petitioner, the State of Karnataka, the
Commissioner of Social Welfare Department and the Deputy
Commissioner, Bidar were respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively.
The appellant Prabhu Chavan was respondent No.4. For the
purpose of clarity, the parties will be referred to henceforth by
their names/Official designations.
6. On the application of the appellant Prabhu Chavan,
the Tahsildar, Aurad B Taluk issued caste certificate dated
02.05.2008 to the effect that Prabhu Chavan belongs to
Lamaani Caste which is a Scheduled caste and resident of
Bonti Thanda of Aurad B Taluk, Bidar District. On the basis of
such certificate, in 2008 Prabhu Chavan contested elections
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
for the post of Member of Legislative Assembly, Aurad B Taluk
which was reserved for the scheduled caste candidate.
7. On the application of Prabhu Chavan, the Tahsildar
Aurad B Taluk issued another caste certificate dated
04.02.2013 carrying validity for life time to the effect that
Prabhu Chavan belongs to Scheduled caste (Lamaani). On
16.02.2014 one Shankerrao S/o.Tippanna Doddi filed a
complaint before the Ministry of Social Welfare alleging that
Prabhu Chavan is not resident of Karnataka and does not
belong to the Scheduled Caste. On 05.01.2015 the said
Minister referred that complaint to the Secretary, Social
Welfare Department for holding an enquiry.
8. In turn, the Secretary to Social Welfare
Department referred the same to Additional Director General
of Police (Directorate, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell) (for short
'ADGP (DCRE)'), Divisional Office, Kalaburagi for necessary
enquiry. ADGP (DCRE) referred that complaint to the
Superintendent of Police (DCRE), Kalaburagi for enquiry. The
Superintendent of Police (DCRE) sought the report of the
Tahsildar in the matter.
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
9. The Tahsildhar submitted his report dated
22.05.2015 to the Superintendent of Police (DCRE) to the
effect that Prabhu Chavan is born in Karnataka and permanent
resident of Karnataka and he belongs to Lamaani Caste.
Despite such report the Superintendent of Police (DCRE) on
01.01.2016 submitted his report to ADGP (DCRE) stating that
Prabhu Chavan has migrated to Karnataka from Maharashtra
and he does not belong to the Scheduled Caste and he has
fraudulently contested the Elections of 2008 and 2013 for the
reserved constituency. Based on that report, ADGP (DCRE) by
his requisition dated 08.08.2016 referred the matter to the
DCVC for the enquiry.
10. The Deputy Commissioner who is the Chairman of
the DCVC sought the report of the Assistant Director, Social
Welfare Department (CRE). On receipt of such report and on
conducting the enquiry, the DCVC by its order dated
20.11.2017 confirmed that Prabhu Chavan is born in
Karnataka on 06.07.1969 in Ghamusubai Thanda, Bonti
village, Bidar District, Karnataka and he belongs to Lamaani
Caste (SC).
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
11. Shankerrao challenged that order of DCVC by filing
W.P.No.58264/2017 (GM-CC). This Court by order dated
06.03.2018 dismissed that writ petition holding that
Shankerrao had an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing
appeal under Section 4-D(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (for short 'the
Act, 1990') and hence the writ petition was not maintainable.
The liberty was given to him to prefer appeal.
12. Shankerrao filed Appeal No.01/2018-19 before the
Commissioner of Social Welfare Department and Appellate
Authority, Bengaluru. However, on 07.05.2018 he sought
withdrawal of the said appeal. The Commissioner/Appellate
Authority recording the submission though dismissed the
appeal on 07.05.2018 imposing costs of Rs.1,00,000/-,
referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to hold an
enquiry by constituting a Committee consisting of CEO Zilla
Panchayat, Deputy Superintendent of Police (CRE), Deputy
Director of Social Welfare Department. While passing order
for such re-enquiry Prabhu Chavan was not heard.
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
13. Such being the facts on 06.03.2020 Ravindra
Swamy the petitioner in W.P.No.225917/2020 filed an
application before the Deputy Commissioner purportedly by
way of revision petition under Section 4-F of the Act for
quashing the caste certificate dated 04.02.2013 issued in
favour of Prabhu Chavan and for direction to DCRE to file a
criminal case against the Tahsildar for issuing such caste
certificate.
14. The Deputy Commissioner by endorsement dated
31.03.2020/10.04.2020 rejected the said petition on the
ground that the matter is already concluded by order dated
20.11.2017, therefore the revision petition cannot be
considered. Ravindraswamy filed W.P.No.225917/2020 for
quashing the said endorsement of the Deputy Commissioner
and seeking mandamus against the Deputy Commissioner to
hold an enquiry in terms of the order dated 07.05.2018 issued
by the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department.
15. After rejection of revision petition of
Ravindraswamy on 26.05.2020 Vijaykumar filed revision
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
petition No.C & V CR/98/2016-17 before Deputy Commission
Bidar seeking cancellation of the Caste Certificate. Then he
filed W.P.No.226907/2020 (GM-CC) seeking writ of mandamus
against the Deputy Commissioner to decide his revision
without loss of time. Prabhu Chavan and the Authorities
opposed the writ petitions.
16. The learned Single Judge on hearing the parties,
by the impugned order allowed the writ petitions on the
following grounds:
(i) The fact that at the relevant time, Prabhu Chavan
was the incharge Minister of Bidar District was not countered
by his Counsel. It is apparent that the Deputy Commissioner,
DCVC and the Tahsildar have acted under his influence. For
that reason the Deputy Commissioner must have dismissed
the revision petition of Ravindra Swamy without issuing notice
to Prabhu Chavan;
(ii) ADGP (DCRE) in his communication dated
08.08.2016 to the Deputy Commissioner based on the report
of the Superintendent of Police (CRE) Kalaburagi observed
that Prabhu Chavan was born in Maharasthra and later
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
migrated to Ghumsaibai Thanda and obtaining false caste
certificate was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly in
2008 and 2013 for the reserved constituency of Aurad B
Taluk. Despite that, the Deputy Commissioner has not
conducted any enquiry. Apparently such inaction is under the
influence of Prabhu Chavan;
(iii) Since the documents with regard to the residence
of Prabhu Chavan are issued by the respondent State only,
State and Authorities support them. Therefore re-enquiry to
determine the residential status of Prabhu Chavan is required;
(iv) Since Ravindra Swamy and Vijaykumar have
pleaded fraud on the part of Prabhu Chavan while obtaining
caste certificate, to substantiate the documents produced by
the parties and to prove that the authorities have issued
certificate under the influence, an enquiry is needed.
(v) There is no due and proper enquiry by the DCVC
in passing the order dated 20.11.2017. The withdrawal of the
appeal by Shankerrao requires detailed evaluation regarding
fairness of the parties;
(vi) If the parties to the litigation raise plea of fraud,
unfairness, unjustness and unreasonableness in the orders
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
passed by the quasi judicial authorities, the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall step in to set right
the injustice caused to the other side;
(vii) While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the Court shall interfere in cases
where Statutory Authority blindly acts on the direction or
advise given by the Government;
(viii) Even assuming that Ravindra Swamy is not a
'person aggrieved' in terms of the act and his bonafides are
doubtful, since the Court has doubted the bonafides of Prabhu
Chavan, to set right the injustice caused, the Court can
interfere in the matters.
(ix) The DCVC and the Tahsildhar have not properly
followed the scheme and the mandate of the Act;
17. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge
Prabhu Chavan has preferred W.A.Nos.200032/2022 and
200031/2022. Challenging the order of remand Ravindra
Swamy has preferred Cross-objections No.200001/2022 in
W.A.No.200031/2022.
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
Submissions of Sri Jayakumar S Patil, Sri Ashok Haranahalli,
learned Senior counsel for Sri Ganesh S Kalburagi learned
advocate on record for Prabhu Chavan and Sri Prabhuling
Navadgi, learned Advocate General for State Authorities.
18. The learned Single Judge's findings that at the
time of issuance of the Caste Certificate and Caste Verification
Certificate, Prabhu Chavan was District in-charge Minister of
Bidar District and they are issued under his influence are
factually incorrect. When Caste Certificates and Caste
Verification Certificates were issued, Prabhu Chavan was not
even a Minister. Since Ravindra Swamy's Caste Certificate
itself was in doubt and he did not belong to Scheduled Caste /
Scheduled Tribe, he had no locus-standi to challenge the
Caste Certificate or Caste Verification Certificate issued in
favour of Prabhu Chavan. The revision petitions of Vijay
Kumar and Ravindra Swamy were filed after two years of
issue of Caste verification certificate. They only challenged the
caste certificate issued in favour of Prabhu Chavan. That caste
certificate merges in the order of Caste verification certificate
of DCVC. Therefore, the revision petition and the writ petition
themselves were not maintainable. Against the order of DCVC
only an appeal lies before the Commissioner. Such appeal filed
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
by Shankerrao was already concluded. Filing of revision
petition and consequent writ petitions amount to overreaching
the order passed in W.P.No.58264/2017. When the revision
petition and the writ petition themselves were not
maintainable, no mandamus could be issued to serve a futile
purpose. Ravindra Swamy's revision petition as well as writ
petitions lacked bonafides as he was a political rival. Initially in
the writ petition of Ravindra Swamy, the endorsement issued
by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting his revision petition
was sought to be quashed. After the matter was heard
Ravindra Swamy filed an application on 21.01.2022 for
amendment of the petition to include the prayer for quashing
the DCVC order. On filing the application learned Single
Judge reserved matter for judgment and pronounced on
01.02.2022. In para No.2 of the impugned judgment learned
Single Judge says that the amendment application is allowed.
Prabhu Chavan was not given an opportunity to contest the
said application nor amendment was carried out in the writ
petition to include the prayer sought to be made out by
amendment. The learned Single Judge quashed the order of
the Caste Verification Committee also without giving
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
opportunity to Prabhu Chavan either to meet the amendment
application or the prayer made by way of amendment in the
application. Therefore the order of the learned Single Judge is
in violation of principles of natural justice. The said
amendment was changing the nature of the case. Moreover
there were no pleadings in support of such prayer. The
learned Single Judge's finding that Prabhu Chavan wielded
influence and fraud was without pleadings to that effect in the
writ petitions. The order of the learned Single Judge is
contrary to Rule 7(4) of the Karnataka SC/ST & other BC
(Reservation of Appointments, etc) Rules 1992 ('the Rules' for
short). Thus the grant of relief so far as the order of the
DCVC was without adjudication. Though Ravindra Swamy
sought quashing of the order of DCVC by way of amendment,
he did not make the DCVC as party to the petition. On that
count also the order is untenable. The writ petitions
themselves were not maintainable. Therefore, the cross-
objection is also not maintainable. Applicability of the Act,
was not a ground in the writ petition and that was raised only
in the argument. The Act is applicable to the certificate issued
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
for the purpose of election. Even the caste certificates issued
relating to the election have to be verified only by DCVC.
19. In support of his submissions he relied on the
following judgments.
1. G. Manjunath V/s Muninanjappa1
2. Bharati Reddy Vs State of Karnataka2
3. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs State of
Maharashtra and others3
4. Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs
Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development and others4.
5. V.K.Majotra Vs Union of India5
6. J. Chitra Vs State Level Vigilance
Committee
7. Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs State of
Karnataka7
8. State of Kerala vs. M.K.Kunhikannan
Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil (dead)
& ors.8
9. Bishundeo Narain vs. Seogeni Rai9
Civil Appeal No.4533/2018 date of order 30.01.2010
(2018) 6 SCC 162
(2013) 4 SCC 465
(1994) 6 SCC 241
(2003)8 SCC 40
(2021)9 SCC 811
(2020) 14 SCC 232
AIR 1996 SC 906
AIR 1951 SC 280
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
Submissions of Sri G.K. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel for
Sri Shivanand Patil, learned advocate on record for Sri
Ravindra Swamy.
20. The learned Single Judge on considering all
contentions remanded the matter to the DCVC, there is no
substantial injustice or error in the said order. The object of
the Act is to issue certificate for the purpose of public
employment and education. Whatever grounds Prabhu Chavan
has, could have been urged by appearing before the Deputy
Commissioner in the Revision Petition filed by Ravindra
Swamy and Vijay kumar. Therefore issuance of Mandamus has
not caused any injustice to Prabhu Chavan. Section 4 of the
Act requires the Deputy Commissioner to hear the revision
petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the application
of Ravindra Swamy without hearing Ravindra Swamy.
Therefore such order of the Deputy Commissioner was
contrary to Section 4-F and in violation of principles of natural
justice. In the Writ petition the particulars of fraud and undue
influence need not be pleaded as required under the CPC. The
certificate under the Act can be issued only for the purpose of
education and employment and not for election. DCVC has no
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
power to issue validity certificate which was sought for
election. The order of DCVC was without jurisdiction. The
order challenged by Shankerrao related to a caste certificate
issued in Form-D. Ravindra Swamy also held a caste
certificate. Until that is set aside, he has locus standi. Since
the order of DCVC was null and void, the amendment to quash
the same was not required. However that was sought on a
safer side. So far as Cross-objection, the learned Single Judge
should not have remanded the matter to the DCVC and should
have quashed the order of DCVC. The document shows that
the Prabhu Chavan was not born in Karnataka. Despite the
Commissioner directing the Deputy Commissioner to hold an
enquiry on Shankerrao withdrawing the appeal, the Deputy
commissioner sat over the matter. That shows the influence
wielded by Prabhu Chavan. DCVC does not refer to the letter
of Civil Right Enforcement Cell dated 01.01.2016. Prabhu
Chavan has not produced any documents in proof of domicile.
Therefore the appeals are liable to be dismissed and cross-
objection deserves to be allowed.
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
21. In support of his submissions he relied on the
following judgments.
1. Real Estate Agencies Vs State of Goa10
2. Union of India Vs Ramesh Gandhi11
3. A.V. Papayya Sastri Vs Govt. of A.P12
4. United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Rajendra
Singh and other13
22. On consideration of rival submissions and the
material on record, the point that are arises for consideration
is "Whether the impugned order of the learned Single Judge
is sustainable in law?".
Analysis
Reg. Applicability of Act, 1990 and Rules 1992:
23. Having regard to the contention of the Counsel for
writ petitioners Vijaya Kumar and Ravindra Swamy that the
provisions of the Act 1990 and Rules 1992 are applicable only
to the caste certificate issued for the purpose of education and
public employment and therefore DCVC could not have issued
validity certificate to Prabhu Chavan regarding caste certificate
(2012) 12 SCC 170
(2012) 1 SCC 476
(2007)4 SCC 221
AIR 2000 SC 1165
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
issued for the purpose of contesting the elections, the first
question is whether the Act and Rules apply to the caste
certificate issued for the purpose of an election.
24. It is 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.' could 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.
25. The larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
its order dated 30.01.2020 in G.Manjunath's case referred to
supra which related to a caste certificate issued for the
purpose of contesting election held as follows:
"We are informed by learned Counsel appearing at the
Bar that there is a specialized committee which has
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
been set up by the State of Karnataka to determine the
various caste claims that are made for purposes such as
employment and admissions to the educational
institutions. However, it is certain that the Verification
Committee is a specialized committee which ordinarily
looks into such matters and determines the validity of
caste claim. Therefore, in exercise of our power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we consider it
appropriate to refer the following question to the said
committee for determination:
(i) Whether the appellant viz., G.Manjunatha
belongs to the scheduled caste known as
"Budaga Jangama' or whether he belongs to
the 'Byragi' caste of Other Backward Classes
in the State of Karnataka.
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, 1990. 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."
(Emphasis Supplied)
26. In Bharati Reddy's case referred to supra the
certificate issued by DCVC for the purpose of election was
upheld. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the
caste certificate issued for the purpose of election is not
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and
therefore DCVC had no jurisdiction to issue validity certificate.
Reg. Maintainability of Revision Petition:
27. To serve the purpose of writ of mandamus, the
revision petitions of Vijayakumar and Ravindra Swamy before
the Deputy Commissioner shall be maintainable. Mr.Ravindra
Swamy and Vijaya Kumar in their revision petitions filed under
Section 4-F of the Act on 06.03.2020 and 26.05.2020
challenged the caste certificate dated 04.02.2013 issued in
favour of Prabhu Chavan. The same caste certificate was
admittedly questioned by Shankerrao by filing complaint dated
16.02.2014 before the Minister for Social Welfare Department.
On his reference, DCVC conducted the enquiry and issued
verification certificate dated 20.11.2017 in favour of Prabhu
Chavan considering the material placed before the Committee.
In view of such order of DCVC, the order of Tahsildar dated
04.02.2013 issuing caste certificate merged into the order of
DCVC and has become integral part of the order of DVCV
dated 20.11.2017.
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
28. Admittedly Shankerrao filed W.P.No.58264/2017
(GM CC) challenging the said order came to be dismissed on
06.03.2018 on the ground that his remedy is to file appeal
under Section 4-D(1) of the Act before the Commissioner and
the Appellate Authority, Social Welfare Department.
Accordingly, he filed Appeal No.1/2018-19. However, the said
appeal was dismissed on 07.05.2018 as withdrawn.
Consequently, the validity certificate issued by DCVC holds the
field until that is set aside by any competent authority.
29. The learned Single Judge holds that though the
Commissioner on dismissing the appeal of Shankerrao under
the order dated 07.05.2018 had directed the Deputy
Commissioner to constitute a Committee, hold an enquiry and
submit report within one month, the Deputy Commissioner
had not complied the same, under the influence of Prabhu
Chavan. Much was argued on behalf of Ravindra Swamy and
Vijay Kumar relying on the said observations to impute undue
influence to Prabhu Chavan. However, the interim order of the
learned Single Judge dated 12.11.2020 itself shows that the
Deputy Commissioner had taken action and the learned Single
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
Judge taking exception to that directed the authorities not to
precipitate the matter. The said order reads as follows:
"Learned Additional Government Advocate seeks
two weeks time to file statement of objections.
Perusal of Annexure - H would clearly establish
the fact that the complainant in Appeal No.1/2018-19
before the respondent No.3 herein has made a
submission on 27.04.2018 to withdraw the complaint.
In furtherance of the same, the respondent No.3 has
permitted the complainant therein to withdraw the same
by imposing cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the
respondent No.3 has constituted a Committee to
investigate the matter and to file the report within
one month.
The respondent No.3 is directed to file
affidavit stating under which provision of law, the
respondent No.3 has constituted a Committee to
investigate the matter.
The respondents are directed not to
precipitate the matter in furtherance of
Annexure - H dated 07.05.2018.
List this matter on 26.11.2020."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. Under the aforesaid circumstances, there is no
merit in the contention that the conclusion of the learned
Single Judge that Deputy Commissioner did not hold any
enquiry under the influence of Prabhu Chavan is inconsistent
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
with his own interim order dated 12.11.2020 and thus
erroneous.
31. The Act provides two channels for challenging the
caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar and the validity
certificate issued by the DCVC. Section 4-B of the Act provides
for appeal to the Assistant Commissioner against the order
passed by the Tahsildar under Section 4-A of the Act for
issuance of caste certificate. Section 4-F provides for filing
revision against the order passed by the Tahsildar and the
Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4-A and 4-B of the
Act. Whereas Section 4-C of the Act provides for verification of
the caste certificate on the application of the candidate to
whom the caste certificate is issued or on the application of
the educational institutions or the appointing authority in case
of an employment. Against an order passed under Section 4-C
of the Act, only an appeal lies to the Appellate Authority
mentioned under Section 4-D of the Act.
32. At least the finding of this Court in
W.P.No.58264/2017 that against the DCVC's order only an
appeal under Section 4-D of the Act lies to the Commissioner
has become final. Under the aforesaid circumstances, as
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for Prabhu Chavan
the attempt of Ravindra Swamy and Vijay Kumar to challenge
the order of Tahsildar dated 04.02.2013 by filing revision
petition amounts to overreaching the order of this Court in
W.P.No.58264/2017. Therefore the said revision petitions
were not maintainable. Consequently issuance of mandamus
to the Deputy Commissioner would serve no purpose.
Reg. Locus standi, Delay and latches
33. Power under Article 226 of Constitution cannot be
exercised if there is delay and latches on the part of the
petitioner. To seek mandamus for implementation of the
order dated 07.05.2018 the writ petition shall be promptly
filed and the persons seeking such mandamus should have
some locus-standi. In Ayub Khan Pataan's case referred to
supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a stranger cannot
be permitted to meddle with the proceedings of caste
certificate unless he has a locus standi/legal right. Moreover
caste certificate issued in favour of Ravindra Swamy itself is
under cloud in view of the judgment passed against him in
W.A.No.200065/2022.
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 8 of the
judgment in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case referred to supra
relying on its earlier judgment in Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari
Kishore Yadav (D) LRS14 held that an action, whether on an
application of the parties or suo-moto must be taken within
the period prescribed by law, if no such period is prescribed
under any law, that must be taken within a reasonable time. It
was further held that, if an application is made after
unreasonably long time, such application is liable to be
dismissed.
35. In this case, the first caste certificate was issued
in the year 2008, the one under challenge was issued in 2013,
DCVC's order was passed on 20.11.2017 and the order of the
Commissioner was dated 07.05.2018. Whereas the writ
petitions were filed in 2020 without justifying such delay. The
caste certificate issued in 2008 was not questioned at all. The
learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order
ignoring the aforesaid facts acted contrary to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Nekkanti Rama
Lakshmi's case referred to supra.
(2017)6 SCC 459
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
Reg. Fraud and undue influence:
36. The entire order of the learned Single Judge reels
around the presumption and inference that the DCVC has
passed the order dated 20.11.2017 and withdrawal of appeal
by Shankerrao was under the political influence of Prabhu
Chavan as he was the District in-charge Minister, therefore
that amounts to fraud. Prabhu Chavan contends that neither
on 04.02.2013, 20.11.2017, 07.05.2018 nor during that
period he was a Minister, much less the District in-charge
Minister. He claims that the learned Single Judge was
prejudiced only based on such bald and scurrilous allegations
without any material to substantiate the same. It was also
contended that the learned Single Judge's observation that
Counsel for Prabhu Chavan during the course of arguments
admitted that he was the Minister during that period is
incorrect.
37. As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel
representing the Advocate on record for Prabhu Chavan, the
fraud and undue influence are serious matters and the
particulars of the same need to be pleaded and established.
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
Just on the scurrilous allegations, the Courts cannot accept the
same, merely because the other party is holding some Public
Post. In the writ petitions it was not pleaded that during the
above said period Prabhu Chavan was the Minister/District
incharge Minister nor the same was admitted/pleaded in the
statement of objections of Prabhu Chavan. The petitioners had
not even filed affidavit of Shankerrao or placed any material to
show that Prabhu Chavan wielded influence on Shankerrao,
Tahsildar, Deputy Commissioner or Members of DCVC. Such
imputations should not have been accepted without
appropriate pleadings or material to substantiate the same.
Order VI Rule 4 of CPC mandates that the particulars of fraud
and undue influence shall be pleaded. It was contended that
Order VI Rule 4 of CPC is not applicable to the writ
proceedings. In submitting so, learned Counsel for Ravindra
Swamy was oblivious of Rule 2(2) and 39 of High Court of
Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 which say that the
petitioner shall plead all relevant facts which have given
occasion to the petition and wherever not provided in the
Rules, CPC shall apply.
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
38. The Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court as long back in 1951 in para 22 of the judgment in
Bishundeo's case referred to supra in this regard has held as
follows:
"22. We turn next to the questions of undue
influence and coercion. Now it is to be observed that
these have not been separately pleaded. It is true they
may overlap in part in some cases but they are separate
and separable categories in law and must be separately
pleaded. It is also to be observed that no proper
particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one rule
which is better established than any other, it is that in
cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties
pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case
can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can
be no departure from them in evidence. General
allegations are insufficient even to amount to an
averment of fraud of which any court ought to take
notice however strong the language in which they are
couched may be, and the same applies to undue
influence and coercion. "
(Emphasis Supplied)
39. The learned Single Judge acted contrary to the
aforesaid judgment in Bishundeo's case and facts and
circumstances of the case in holding that Prabhu Chavan
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
obtained caste certificate and validity certificate by wielding
undue influence on the concerned Officers/officials.
Reg. Amendment application and principles of natural
Justice:
40. So far as quashing DCVC's order based on an
amendment application, in para 8 of the judgment in
V.K.Majotra's case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that in issuing the directions beyond the pleadings,
the Judges of the High Court overstepped their jurisdiction. It
was further observed that the writ Courts would be well
advised to decide the petition on the points raised in the
petition and in a rare case any additional points are to be
raised, then the concerned and the affected parties should be
put to notice on additional points to satisfy the principles of
natural justice.
41. In view of the above judgment, learned Single
Judge committed serious error in allowing the amendment
application which was filed belatedly without hearing the
affected parties. On allowing such application not even the
petition was amended and opportunity was given to Prabhu
Chavan to file his counter to the amended petition. By way of
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
amendment only a prayer was sought to be incorporated to
quash the order of DCVC dated 20.11.2017 without setting
forth any grounds for the same. Thereby the principles of
natural justice were glaringly violated vitiating the impugned
order.
42. It was contended that the order of DCVC was the
outcome of the fraud, therefore the same was nullity,
warranted quashing even in the absence of a prayer by way of
amendment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 6 of the
judgment in M.K.Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth,
Naduvil's case referred to supra in this regard held as follows:
"6. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits
of the case. We are of the view that the order passed
inter parties in C.R.P. 3440 of 1977 dated 2.11.1977, has
become final, and it concludes the matter. The
observations made in the proceedings, at the instance of
the 1st respondent regarding the validity of the order of
the Board, in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977, will not, in any way,
affect the legality and validity of the proceedings declining
to implead respondents No.3 and 4 or the order passed in
Revision therefrom-C.R.P.3440 of 1977. It is true that the
proceedings dated 28.6.1977 was observed to be void in
law in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977, filed by the first respondent.
In our opinion, even a void order or decision
rendered between parties cannot be said to be non-
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
existent in all cases and in all situations. Ordinarily,
such an order will, in fact be effective inter parties until it
is successfully avoided or challenged in higher forum.
Mere use of the word "void" is not determinative of
its legal impact. The word "void" has a relative rather
than an absolute meaning. It only conveys the idea that
the order is invalid or illegal. It can be avoided. There are
degrees of invalidity, depending upon the gravity of the
infirmity, as to whether it is, fundamental or otherwise
and in this case, the only complaint about the initiation of
the suo moto proceedings by Board was, that it was not
initiated on intimation by the State Land Board about the
non-filing of the statement as required by Section 85(7)
of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In our opinion, this is not
a case where the infirmity is fundamental. It is
unnecessary to consider the matter further."
(Emphasis supplied)
43. The very fact of Shankerrao challenging the order
of DCVC before this Court in writ petition No.58264/2017 and
before the Commissioner in appeal goes to show that the
parties never treated the same as void. When the said order
was considered by this Court and the Commissioner, at this
stage, it is not open to contend that the order was null and
void, therefore even in the absence of prayer to that effect the
learned Single Judge could have quashed that.
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
Reg. Scope of interference in DCVC order:
44. According to Prabhu Chavan, the caste/validity
certificate issued in his favour is being challenged incessantly
by one or the other just to harass him due to political rivalry.
The above narrated facts and circumstances go to show that
though the caste certificate was originally issued in 2008, that
was not challenged. Prabhu Chavan admittedly was elected as
Member of Legislative Assembly of Aurad B Taluk since 2008
continuously. His trouble started when he was elected for the
second term also during 2013-2014. There onwards one after
another as and when they desired initiated proceedings
against him in the garb of validity of caste certificate/DCVC
order. That probabilizes his contention that his opponents
abusing the process of the Court are initiating such
proceedings. The scheme of Rule 7 (4) and (5) shows that
enquiry by the DCVC and the appeal against the order of
DCVC shall be concluded in a time bound manner. The appeal
shall be disposed of within 45 days from the date of filing of
the appeal. Those provisions also indicate that DCVC order
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
cannot be meddled at the sweet will of disgruntled party after
lapse of several years.
45. The larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of the
judgment in Bharati Reddy's case referred to supra has held
there is statutory presumption that caste certificate would be
valid until cancelled by competent authority. It was further
held that the High Court was not justified in issuing a writ of
quo-warranto prima facie doubting the same to be fraudulent.
In this case also the learned Single Judge doubted the caste
certificate/DCVC order to be fraudulent only on the ground
that Prabhu Chavan was the District incharge Minister, during
that period which was factually in correct.
46. In Madhuri Patils' case referred to supra the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court should not under
Article 226 of the Constitution ordinarily interfere with the
finding of the verification Committee.
47. In para 10 of the judgment in Chitra's case
referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once
the DCVC upheld the caste certificate that shall not be
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
reopened unless that is challenged in the Appellate Forum. It
was further held that repeated enquiries for verification of
caste certificates would be detrimental to the members of
the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes. It was held
that unless the caste certificates are vitiated by fraud or
without inquiry, they shall not be reopened. In para 11 of the
judgment it was held that State Level Scrutiny Committee did
not had the power to reopen the caste certificate that was
issued by DCVC long back without any appeal filed against
that.
48. The judgments relied on by learned Counsel for
Ravindra Swamy and Vijay Kumar in A.V.Papayya's case,
Ramesh Gandhi's case, Real Estate Agency's case cannot be
justifiably applied to the facts of the present case. In view of
the discussions made above, the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the writ
petitions are liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the cross-
objection fails. Hence the following:
ORDER
W.A.Nos.200031/2022 and 200032/2022 are hereby
allowed with costs.
W.A.No.200032/2022
C/w
W.A.No.200031/2022
Cross objection No.200001/2022 filed in
W.A.No.200031/2022 is hereby dismissed.
The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is
hereby set aside.
W.P.No.225917/2020 and W.P.No.226907/2020 are
hereby dismissed with costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR/Akc
