JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the Special Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2. The brief facts is that the petitioners belong to Bedar caste and all the petitioners hail from the same family and that they are permanent residents of Bijaguppi village, Savadatti taluk, Belgaum district. That they and their forefathers belong to Bedar caste which is categorized as a Schedule Tribe. That in the certificate issued by the school and other authorities, the caste of the petitioners is described as Hindu Bedar/Barda. That the words Bedar and Barda are synonymous. That Bedar and Barda are classified as Scheduled Tribe both by the State and Central Government. 3. That on an application by the petitioners the Tahsildar, Savadatti after following due procedure issued caste certificate certifying the petitioners as belonging to the Hindu Bedar caste which is categorized as a Scheduled Tribe. 4. That respondent Nos.4 and 5 who are in no way aggrieved and having no locus-standi are said to have lodged a complaint with the 3rd respondent and on receipt of the complaint the 3rd respondent has initiated enquiry into the genuineness of the caste certificate and in this direction, the 3rd respondent issued an enquiry notice and directed the petitioners to appear for the enquiry and to produce such documents for the purpose of investigation of the complaint said to have been received by the 3rd respondent. 5. Aggrieved by the said notice calling the petitioners to attend the enquiry, the petitioners approached this court and before the learned single judge it was contended that the initiation of enquiry after 23 years is improper and stand vitiated. 6. Learned single judge taking note of the fact that what was challenged merely a notice, disposed off the writ petition holding that the notice, neither decides the caste status of the petitioners nor deprives the petitioners of any benefits. Learned single judge was further pleased to observe that the petitioners if aggrieved they could avail the alternative remedy provided under the Act and accordingly was pleased to dispose off the writ petition. Aggrieved, the petitioners are before this court in this intra court appeal. 7. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the enquiry notice issued by the 3rd respondent is illegal or otherwise contrary to law? 8. Aggrieved, the petitioners are before this court in this intra court appeal. 7. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the enquiry notice issued by the 3rd respondent is illegal or otherwise contrary to law? 8. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners are holding caste certificates, certifying them as belonging to Hindu, Bedar or Barda caste, which admittedly is categorized as Scheduled Tribe. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have been utilizing the certificate to secure the benefits extended by the Governments. 9. The primary contention on behalf of the appellant is that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have no authority in law nor or they aggrieved persons as defined under the Act, cannot be appreciated for the reason that what is preferred by respondent Nos.4 and 5 is not an appeal as defined under the Act, but an information to the competent authority and it cannot be argued that the investigation is without jurisdiction as the Act provides for prosecution of offenders i.e. those who have falsely and fraudulently obtained certificates certifying that they belong to SC-ST. A reading of Section 5, 5-A, 5-B and 6 of The Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 obviates any discussion in this regard. By the said provisions the act of obtaining a false certificate by practicing a fraud have been made penal offence, punishable with imprisonment. Hence, it cannot be gainfully argued by the 3rd respondent that they have no jurisdiction and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are mere informants and the 3rd respondent admittedly being a police officer is competent to investigate any offence committed by the petitioners in the course of obtaining the certificates. The reliance on the ruling reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4384 and the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 8 SCC 430 is of no avail as the same are inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of these case. 10. In the light of the above provisions whereby the offence has been treated as a penal offence and further providing for punishment by way of rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be gainfully argued that the 3rd respondent is devoid of jurisdiction to investigate a complaint. The attempt by the appellant to canvass the complaint/information as an appeal must fail. 11. 10. In the light of the above provisions whereby the offence has been treated as a penal offence and further providing for punishment by way of rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be gainfully argued that the 3rd respondent is devoid of jurisdiction to investigate a complaint. The attempt by the appellant to canvass the complaint/information as an appeal must fail. 11. The next contention that the long passage of 23 years vitiates the enquiry is also unfounded. Fraud vitiates even solemn act. The law in this regard is no more res-integra. What is complained before the 3rd respondent is that the petitioners have played a fraud and obtained the certificate certifying them as belonging to Hindu Bedar/Barda caste. If that be so, then respondents are fully empowered to investigate. Further learned single judge of this court in similar circumstances placing reliance on the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner for Tribal Development reported in 1994(6) SCC 241 was pleased to reject a similar writ petition calling in question a similar enquiry notice issued and was pleased to observe in paragraph 3 & 4 as under:- “3. The Apex Court in the case of MADHURI PATIL vs ADDL. COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 , after noticing the grave irregularity in issuing and obtaining the caste certificates by persons who did not belong to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes and thus cornering the benefits meant for them and denying the same to them held that the admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily have the effect of depriving the genuine scheduled castes or scheduled tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinized at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of a social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, the Supreme Court prescribed procedure to be followed and it called upon all the States to follow the aforesaid procedure or pass appropriate Legislation incorporating the said procedure. One of the steps prior to an enquiry to scrutinize the certificate issued, the Supreme Court has directed as under: “5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge or the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged, in the proforma, in particular, of the scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc.”. 4. In fact, even before the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment, the Karnataka State had passed the Karnataka Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and other backward classes (reservation of appointment) Act 1990 and the Rules in 1992. After the aforesaid judgment, these acts and rules have been brought in conformity with the aforesaid Judgment of the Supreme Court. 4. In fact, even before the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment, the Karnataka State had passed the Karnataka Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and other backward classes (reservation of appointment) Act 1990 and the Rules in 1992. After the aforesaid judgment, these acts and rules have been brought in conformity with the aforesaid Judgment of the Supreme Court. It is in this background, 2nd respondent has issued the notices calling for certain particulars in order to verify and scrutinize whether the caste certificate relied on by the petitioner is validly given or not. The said authority has no jurisdiction to cancel the caste certificate issued but he will only collect the information and then submit a report. It is thereafter the authority constituted under the Act which would initiate proceedings, if they choose to do so, only after hearing the petitioner appropriate orders would be passed. The whole exercise undertaken by the 2nd respondent is to unearth the truth. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that he is going to cancel the certificate, he has no jurisdiction to do so and the certificate is issued much prior to the enactment which has no application, has no substance.” We are in respectful agreement of the opinion of the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, we do not find any good ground which warrants interference with the order of the learned single judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals stand rejected.