Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1404 (KAR)

Kamala v. Tahsildar

2013-12-16

A.S.BOPANNA

body2013
Judgment : 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 14.10.2009 impugned at Annexure-D to the petition. The petitioner is also assailing the order dated 20.02.2013 impugned at Annexure-E to the petition. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner claiming to belong to 'Nayaka caste' had obtained a caste certificate from the Tahsildar so as to enable her to contest for the post of 'Deputy Mayor', Mysore City Corporation. The correctness or otherwise of the said certificate had arisen for consideration before this Court at the first instance when an adverse order had been passed against the petitioner. In the said petition in W.P.No.13833/2009, this Court while disposing of the same by its order dated 22.06.2009 had set aside the orders impugned therein and had remanded the matter to the Tahsildar to reconsider the same after providing opportunity to the petitioner to putforth the contentions including the written statements. Pursuant thereto, the order dated 14.10.2009 at Annexure-D has been passed. The petitioner made one more application to the Tahsildar subsequent to the said order and the Tahsildar has rejected the same by the endorsement dated 20.02.2013 (Annexure-E) since the order dated 14.10.2009 had remained un-assailed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though this Court had remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for reconsideration and certain observations have been made in the order with regard to the contentions raised, the Tahsildar ultimately has not arrived at the conclusion one way or the other with regard to the validity or otherwise of the certificate which has been issued in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that the Tahsildar merely taking note of the circumstances under which the certificate had been issued and the purpose having been served had wrongly arrived at the conclusion that this Court had set aside the caste certificate in W.P.No.13833/2009. The learned counsel would also refer to the decision of this Court in W.P.No.23470/2011 dated 08.08.2011 to contend that the Tahsildar in any event could not have exercised jurisdiction to decide the correctness or otherwise of the certificate issued by him earlier. Hence, it is contended that the orders impugned herein are not justified. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would however contend that the petitioner has not putforth the actual contentions in the instant petition and therefore has not approached this Court with clean hands. Hence, it is contended that the orders impugned herein are not justified. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would however contend that the petitioner has not putforth the actual contentions in the instant petition and therefore has not approached this Court with clean hands. In that regard, it is contended that a perusal of the order passed by the Tahsildar would indicate that the Tahsildar has taken note of the fact that the entries relating to the petitioner in the records indicated as 'Ganga Matha' and therefore the said caste in any event is not a 'Schedule Tribe' and therefore the certificate issued to the petitioner in any event was not justified. Hence, it is contended that the Tahsildar having taken note of these aspects was justified and the order does not call for interference. 5. In the light of the above, first and foremost it would have to be noticed that though this Court in W.P.No.23470/2011 dated 08.08.2011 had held that the Tahsildar himself would not be entitled to reconsider the caste certificate issued by him and the aggrieved party would have to prefer an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, the said order cannot be made applicable to the present facts inasmuch as this Court while disposing of W.P.No.13833/2009 dated 22.06.2009 in a matter inter-se between the parties had remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for reconsideration and therefore in the instant facts, it was the Tahsildar alone who shall reconsider the matter in view of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.13833/2009. 6. Having arrived at the above conclusion, what is necessary to be noticed is that even though as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Tahsildar has made reference to the caste indicated in the documents in the body of the order, while ultimately disposing of the matter, the Tahsildar has not arrived at the conclusion one way or the other with regard to the validity of the certificate, but has wrongly assumed that the certificate has already been set aside by this Court and no decision has been rendered. Therefore, in a circumstance where the Tahsildar has not taken a decision on the same one way or the other, the parties would be affected by the same inasmuch as the further recourse to law cannot be availed by the parties and based on such observation, the petitioner in any event would be prejudiced when application is made in future for caste certificate. Therefore, the Tahsildar would have to determine the correctness or otherwise of the claim made by the petitioner and come to a conclusion one way or the other in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, in view of the said finding, the order dated 14.10.2009 at Annexure-D in its present form cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly quashed. Since, I have already arrived at the conclusion that the Tahsildar is required to reconsider the matter, the endorsement dated 20.02.2013 (Annexure-E) is also set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tahsildar for reconsideration in terms of the direction already issued by this Court in W.P.No.13833/2009 dated 22.06.2009. In order to ensure earlier consideration of the matter by the Tahsildar, the parties shall now appear before the Tahsildar on 02.01.2014 as the first date of appearance. The Tahsildar shall thereafter conclude the matter as expeditiously as possible. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.