Karnataka High Court
Arunkumar S/O Chandrashekhar ... vs Manjunathasingh S/O Parashuramasingh ... on 7 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7602
WP No. 102394 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 102394 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
ARUNKUMAR
S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR MALLAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HANUMASAGAR, HANGAL TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT-581203.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.B. ANCHATGERI &
SMT. K. SHOBHARANI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. MANJUNATHASINGH
S/O. PARASHURAMASINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER,
R/O. BAMMANAHALLI,
HANGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581203.
2. ELECTION OFFICER,
GRAMA PANCHAYATI, BAMMANAHALLI,
HANGAL TALUK, HAVERI-581203.
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Digitally signed by
3. HEAD MASTER,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH
GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY KANNADA SCHOOL,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
BAMMANAHALLI, HANGAL TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT-581203.
4. SMT. ANNAPURNA NAGAPPA BIDARAGADDI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
BAMMANAHALLI, HANGAL TALUK,
HAVERI DIST-581203.
5. JAYANAGOUDA CHANNABASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BAMMANAHALLI, HANGAL TALUK,
HAVERI DIST-581203.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7602
WP No. 102394 of 2024
6. PARASHANTH SHIDDALINGAPPA SUKALI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. BAMMANAHALLI, HANGAL TALUK,
HAVERI DIST-581203.
7. BASAVARAJ BASAVANNEPPA HITTALAMANI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BAMMANAHALLI, HANGAL TALUK,
HAVERI DIST-581203.
8. RATNAVVA CHANNAVEERAPPA HULAGURA,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BAMMANAHALLI, HANGAL TALUK,
HAVERI DIST-581203.
9. RUKMAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA SAVANUR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BAMMANAHALLI, HANGAL TALUK,
HAVERI DIST-581203.
10. RENAVVA VENKAPPA SAVANUR,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BAMMANAHALLI, HANGAL TALUK,
HAVERI DIST-581203.
11. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER /CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME
VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R3 & R11;
R2-SERVED; R4-R10 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE OR QUASH THE ORDER
PERTAINS TO REJECTION OF OBJECTION TO THE REPORT
SUBMITTED OF DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION
COMMITTEE, HAVERI AT ANNEXURE-J ORDER DATED 02/04/2024 IN
ELECTION PETITION NO.5/2021 BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HANGAL; KINDLY ISSUE AN ORDER IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE OR QUASH THE REPORT
SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.11 i.e., THE DISTRICT CASTE AND
INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, HAVERI DATED 15/12/2023 AT
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7602
WP No. 102394 of 2024
ANNEXURE-C, CONSEQUENTLY BY DIRECTION TO BE ISSUED TO
HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HANGAL ISSUE RE-
DIRECTION TO BE ISSUED TO DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME
VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, HAVERI TO HOLD PROPER AND FRESH
INQUIRY TO BE CONDUCT WITH REGARDS TO VERIFICATION CASTE
OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Respondent No.1 has raised a election dispute
against the petitioner herein, who is a Return Candidate
questioning the election on the ground that petitioner has
contested the elections by producing a false certificate.
Pending dispute before the Election Tribunal, the Tribunal
at the instance of petitioner herein referred his caste
certificate for an enquiry before the Caste Verification
Committee. The Caste Verification Committee has
enquired and has sent a report indicating that the caste
certificate of petitioner is false. The petitioner feeling
aggrieved by the report now wants to contest and object
the report in the pending election dispute proceedings.
2. This Court is unable to understand as to how
the petitioner can assail the validity of the order passed by
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7602
the Caste Verification Committee. This Court is also unable
to understand that how the Election Tribunal can examine
the correctness of the report/order passed by the Caste
Verification Committee. The petitioner has to challenge the
report before the competent forum and not before the
Tribunal in pending election dispute proceedings. The
order passed by the Tribunal in rejecting the objections
tendered by the petitioner does not suffer from any
perversity. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in W.P.No.55478/2014 has no application to
the present case on hand.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to
assail the report in the manner known to law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM+MBS
