Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 273 (KAR)

M. A. Ayyappan v. State of Karnataka

2016-03-17

A.S.BOPANNA

body2016
ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 27.10.2014 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. By the order impugned, the Assistant Commissioner apart from setting aside the order dated 21.02.2014 has also directed that the petitioner if he has any grievance with regard to the caste certificate issued to the fourth respondent herein, he is required to approach the District Caste Verification Committee in that regard. 2. The fourth respondent has relied on the caste certificate dated 16.02.2013 while filing his nomination papers for the elections to the Town Municipal Council at KGF. The petitioner is aggrieved by the caste status as claimed by the fourth respondent. In that view, the petitioner had filed a compliant to the Tahsildar which was registered in CCV.CR31/2013-14. By the order dated 21.02.2014, the Tahsildar had set aside the caste certificate dated 28.07.2010 which had been issued to the fourth respondent. 3. Though at this point, the contention put forth on behalf of the fourth respondent is that the caste certificate dated 16.02.2013 had not been assailed by the petitioner before the Tahsildar, that aspect of the of the matter would lose its relevance inasmuch as what is required to be considered by this Court at the outset is the remedy available to any person if he or she is to assail the caste certificate issued to another. If in that light, the consideration in the instant petition is to be made with regard to the grievance raised by the petitioner relating to the caste certificate issued to the fourth respondent and the context in which such grievance has been raised by the petitioner, what would be relevant for consideration at this stage is the caste certificate dated 16.02.2013 and the remedy available to the petitioner that is to be considered herein since that was the certificate produced along with the nomination paper. 4. In that background, when the order dated 21.02.2014 was passed by the Tahsildar canceling the earlier caste certificate dated 28.07.2010, the third respondent did not ignore the said order on the ground that the caste certificate dated 16.02.2013 was not set aside therein and had remained valid. On the other hand, the fourth respondent claiming to be aggrieved that his caste status had been interfered with had filed an appeal in ADM.CR.56/2013-14 before the Assistant Commissioner. On the other hand, the fourth respondent claiming to be aggrieved that his caste status had been interfered with had filed an appeal in ADM.CR.56/2013-14 before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner has ultimately set aside the order dated 21.02.2014 passed by the Tahsildar whereby the caste certificate of the fourth respondent had been cancelled. In that view, the caste certificate dated 28.07.2010 would stand revived and since the fourth respondent has also obtained the caste certificate dated 16.02.2013 which was relied along with the nomination papers, the same would also remain in force and the grievance of the petitioner against such caste certificate issued to the fourth respondent would continue to subsist. 5. If that be the position, the question would also be as to whether the petitioner should approach the Caste Verification Committee as has been observed by the Assistant Commissioner or as to whether the petitioner would have to assail the caste certificate dated 16.02.2013 by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. 6. In that regard, at this juncture, though contentions had also been urged as to whether a caste certificate issued for the purpose of elections would be necessary to be considered in terms of the provisions contained in Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 and Rules 1992 and different view taken by this Court in different circumstances had also been brought to the notice of this Court, the same need not be adverted to in detail for the reason that even if the very provision contained in Section 4-C(2) of the Act, 1990, is taken into consideration, the petitioner who is assailing the caste certificate issued to the fourth respondent is not required to approach the District Caste Verification Committee since such requirement is only by a person who has the benefit of the caste certificate and seeks validity thereof or by the Appointing Authority since validation of such certificate is to be acted upon. 7. Therefore, in that circumstance, the only option available to the petitioner is to file an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner who shall entertain such appeal and consider the same on its merits and in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, in that circumstance, the only option available to the petitioner is to file an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner who shall entertain such appeal and consider the same on its merits and in accordance with law. Keeping this aspect in the background, a perusal of the order impugned dated 27.10.2014 would indicate that apart from observing that the petitioner has to approach the District Caste Verification Committee, the order dated 21.02.2014 is also set aside. As already noticed, by the said order, though a different caste certificate dated 28.07.2010 has been restored, the position of law in any event is that the Tahsildar who has issued the caste certificate would become functus officio and any compliant made to him thereafter cannot be entertained by him in respect of the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar as has been held by this Court in W.P. No. 23470/2011 dated 08.08.2011. 8. Hence, to the extent, the Assistant Commissioner by the impugned order dated 27.10.2014 arriving at the conclusion that the order dated 21.02.2014 is to be set aside, the same is in accordance with the legal position only insofar as the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar to re-visit the caste certificate issued earlier. Therefore, that portion of the order in Annexure-A dated 27.10.2014 does not call for interference. Since the Assistant Commissioner has further opined that the petitioner is required to approach the District Caste Verification Committee, it would have to be taken that the Assistant Commissioner as of now has not decided the status of the fourth respondent relating to the caste as per the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar. Since I have in the course of this order indicated that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to file an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and not to approach the District Caste Verification Committee, liberty would have to be reserved to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner to assail the caste certificate dated 16.02.2013 which is relied on by the fourth respondent along with the nomination form. 9. If such appeal is filed by the petitioner, the same is to be entertained and be considered on merits and to that extent, all contentions of both the parties are left open to be considered by the Assistant Commissioner. 9. If such appeal is filed by the petitioner, the same is to be entertained and be considered on merits and to that extent, all contentions of both the parties are left open to be considered by the Assistant Commissioner. Since this Court at the first instance had granted an interim order, the same shall continue for a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the petitioner filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such appeal is filed by the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner shall notify the fourth respondent herein, consider the case on merits and pass orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date on which the fourth respondent appears before the Assistant Commissioner pursuant to the notice issued therein. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A. Nos. 1/2015 and 2/2015 do not survive for consideration. The same are disposed of accordingly.