JUDGMENT P. B. Bajanthri, J. - In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- a) Writ of Certiorari and quash the impugned order at Annexure D passed by the respondent No.2 herein vide No. Sathyashodane PR/94/2014-15 dated 15-12- 2014; b) Any other writ order or direction that this Hon ble court deems just in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner had obtained caste certificate claiming that she belongs to Nayaka caste. The same has been examined by the District Caste Verification Committee and proceedings have been drawn against the petitioner on 11.09.2014. Pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings vide Annexure A, the Tahsildar, Nanjangud Taluk, proceeded to cancel the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by a order dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure D). Feeling aggrieved by the order of Tahsildar dated 15.12.2014, present writ petition is presented. 3. The petitioner has not questioned the validity of Annexure A proceedings of the District Caste Verification Committee and she has questioned only a consequential order passed by the Tahsildar. The petitioner has statutory remedy of the appeal before the Commissioner/Director for Schedule Tribe under Section 4D of the Karnataka SC/ST and other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990. 4. The Apex Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir V/s. R.K.Zalpuri and others, (2016) AIR SC 3006 at paragraph 20 has held as under: 20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage form City and Industrial Development Corporation V/s.Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others, (2009) 1 SCC 168 , wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:- The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) Adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed question of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) The petition reveals all material facts; (c) The petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) Person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) Ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) Grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors. (emphasis supplied) (g) Cost and such other relief deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 5. (emphasis supplied) (g) Cost and such other relief deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 5. In view of these facts and circumstances, petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with the order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the Tahsildar. Accordingly, petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to resort for appropriate remedy. Time spent before this Court may be considered for condonation of delay in filing appeal.