Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 84 (KAR)

Prabhu Chavan v. State of Karnataka

2023-01-13

ANIL B.KATTI, K.S.MUDAGAL

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. These appeals arise out of the common order dtd. 1/2/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.225917/2020 c/w W.P.No.226907/2020 (GM-CC). 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge quashed the order dtd. 20/11/2017 passed by the District Caste Verification Committee, Bidar (for short 'DCVC') and the order dtd. 31/3/2020/10/4/2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar rejecting the revision petition of Ravindraswamy. Further the learned Single Judge has remanded the matter to DCVC to adjudicate case No.C & V/CR-98/2016-17 afresh. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.225917/2020(GM-CC) has filed W.A.Cross objection No.200001/2022 assailing the order of remand. 4. In W.P.No.225917/2020 (GM-CC) Ravindra Swamy was the petitioner, Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, Tahsildar Aurad B Taluk, the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement were respondent Nos.1 to 4 respectively and the appellant Prabhu Chavan was respondent No.5. 5. In W.P.No.226907/2020 (GM-CC) Vijay Kumar S/o. Koudiyal was the petitioner, the State of Karnataka, the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department and the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar were respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively. The appellant Prabhu Chavan was respondent No.4. For the purpose of clarity, the parties will be referred to henceforth by their names/Official designations. 6. On the application of the appellant Prabhu Chavan, the Tahsildar, Aurad B Taluk issued caste certificate dtd. 2/5/2008 to the effect that Prabhu Chavan belongs to Lamaani Caste which is a Scheduled caste and resident of Bonti Thanda of Aurad B Taluk, Bidar District. On the basis of such certificate, in 2008 Prabhu Chavan contested elections for the post of Member of Legislative Assembly, Aurad B Taluk which was reserved for the scheduled caste candidate. 7. On the application of Prabhu Chavan, the Tahsildar Aurad B Taluk issued another caste certificate dtd. 4/2/2013 carrying validity for life time to the effect that Prabhu Chavan belongs to Scheduled caste (Lamaani). On 16/2/2014 one Shankerrao S/o.Tippanna Doddi filed a complaint before the Ministry of Social Welfare alleging that Prabhu Chavan is not resident of Karnataka and does not belong to the Scheduled Caste. On 5/1/2015 the said Minister referred that complaint to the Secretary, Social Welfare Department for holding an enquiry. 8. In turn, the Secretary to Social Welfare Department referred the same to Additional Director General of Police (Directorate, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell) (for short 'ADGP (DCRE)'), Divisional Office, Kalaburagi for necessary enquiry. On 5/1/2015 the said Minister referred that complaint to the Secretary, Social Welfare Department for holding an enquiry. 8. In turn, the Secretary to Social Welfare Department referred the same to Additional Director General of Police (Directorate, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell) (for short 'ADGP (DCRE)'), Divisional Office, Kalaburagi for necessary enquiry. ADGP (DCRE) referred that complaint to the Superintendent of Police (DCRE), Kalaburagi for enquiry. The Superintendent of Police (DCRE) sought the report of the Tahsildar in the matter. 9. The Tahsildhar submitted his report dtd. 22/5/2015 to the Superintendent of Police (DCRE) to the effect that Prabhu Chavan is born in Karnataka and permanent resident of Karnataka and he belongs to Lamaani Caste. Despite such report the Superintendent of Police (DCRE) on 1/1/2016 submitted his report to ADGP (DCRE) stating that Prabhu Chavan has migrated to Karnataka from Maharashtra and he does not belong to the Scheduled Caste and he has fraudulently contested the Elections of 2008 and 2013 for the reserved constituency. Based on that report, ADGP (DCRE) by his requisition dtd. 8/8/2016 referred the matter to the DCVC for the enquiry. 10. The Deputy Commissioner who is the Chairman of the DCVC sought the report of the Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department (CRE). On receipt of such report and on conducting the enquiry, the DCVC by its order dtd. 20/11/2017 confirmed that Prabhu Chavan is born in Karnataka on 6/7/1969 in Ghamusubai Thanda, Bonti village, Bidar District, Karnataka and he belongs to Lamaani Caste (SC). 11. Shankerrao challenged that order of DCVC by filing W.P.No.58264/2017 (GM-CC). This Court by order dtd. 6/3/2018 dismissed that writ petition holding that Shankerrao had an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing appeal under Sec. 4-D(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (for short 'the Act, 1990') and hence the writ petition was not maintainable. The liberty was given to him to prefer appeal. 12. Shankerrao filed Appeal No.01/2018-19 before the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department and Appellate Authority, Bengaluru. However, on 7/5/2018 he sought withdrawal of the said appeal. The Commissioner/Appellate Authority recording the submission though dismissed the appeal on 7/5/2018 imposing costs of Rs.1,00,000.00, referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry by constituting a Committee consisting of CEO Zilla Panchayat, Deputy Superintendent of Police (CRE), Deputy Director of Social Welfare Department. However, on 7/5/2018 he sought withdrawal of the said appeal. The Commissioner/Appellate Authority recording the submission though dismissed the appeal on 7/5/2018 imposing costs of Rs.1,00,000.00, referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry by constituting a Committee consisting of CEO Zilla Panchayat, Deputy Superintendent of Police (CRE), Deputy Director of Social Welfare Department. While passing order for such re-enquiry Prabhu Chavan was not heard. 13. Such being the facts on 6/3/2020 Ravindra Swamy the petitioner in W.P.No.225917/2020 filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner purportedly by way of revision petition under Sec. 4-F of the Act for quashing the caste certificate dtd. 4/2/2013 issued in favour of Prabhu Chavan and for direction to DCRE to file a criminal case against the Tahsildar for issuing such caste certificate. 14. The Deputy Commissioner by endorsement dtd. 31/3/2020/10/4/2020 rejected the said petition on the ground that the matter is already concluded by order dtd. 20/11/2017, therefore the revision petition cannot be considered. Ravindraswamy filed W.P.No.225917/2020 for quashing the said endorsement of the Deputy Commissioner and seeking mandamus against the Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry in terms of the order dtd. 7/5/2018 issued by the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department. 15. After rejection of revision petition of Ravindraswamy on 26/5/2020 Vijaykumar filed revision petition No.C & V CR/98/2016-17 before Deputy Commission Bidar seeking cancellation of the Caste Certificate. Then he filed W.P.No.226907/2020 (GM-CC) seeking writ of mandamus against the Deputy Commissioner to decide his revision without loss of time. Prabhu Chavan and the Authorities opposed the writ petitions. 16. The learned Single Judge on hearing the parties, by the impugned order allowed the writ petitions on the following grounds: (i) The fact that at the relevant time, Prabhu Chavan was the incharge Minister of Bidar District was not countered by his Counsel. It is apparent that the Deputy Commissioner, DCVC and the Tahsildar have acted under his influence. For that reason the Deputy Commissioner must have dismissed the revision petition of Ravindra Swamy without issuing notice to Prabhu Chavan; (ii) ADGP (DCRE) in his communication dtd. It is apparent that the Deputy Commissioner, DCVC and the Tahsildar have acted under his influence. For that reason the Deputy Commissioner must have dismissed the revision petition of Ravindra Swamy without issuing notice to Prabhu Chavan; (ii) ADGP (DCRE) in his communication dtd. 8/8/2016 to the Deputy Commissioner based on the report of the Superintendent of Police (CRE) Kalaburagi observed that Prabhu Chavan was born in Maharasthra and later migrated to Ghumsaibai Thanda and obtaining false caste certificate was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly in 2008 and 2013 for the reserved constituency of Aurad B Taluk. Despite that, the Deputy Commissioner has not conducted any enquiry. Apparently such inaction is under the influence of Prabhu Chavan; (iii) Since the documents with regard to the residence of Prabhu Chavan are issued by the respondent State only, State and Authorities support them. Therefore re-enquiry to determine the residential status of Prabhu Chavan is required; (iv) Since Ravindra Swamy and Vijaykumar have pleaded fraud on the part of Prabhu Chavan while obtaining caste certificate, to substantiate the documents produced by the parties and to prove that the authorities have issued certificate under the influence, an enquiry is needed. (v) There is no due and proper enquiry by the DCVC in passing the order dtd. 20/11/2017. The withdrawal of the appeal by Shankerrao requires detailed evaluation regarding fairness of the parties; (vi) If the parties to the litigation raise plea of fraud, unfairness, unjustness and unreasonableness in the orders passed by the quasi judicial authorities, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall step in to set right the injustice caused to the other side; (vii) While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court shall interfere in cases where Statutory Authority blindly acts on the direction or advise given by the Government; (viii) Even assuming that Ravindra Swamy is not a 'person aggrieved' in terms of the act and his bonafides are doubtful, since the Court has doubted the bonafides of Prabhu Chavan, to set right the injustice caused, the Court can interfere in the matters. (ix) The DCVC and the Tahsildhar have not properly followed the scheme and the mandate of the Act; 17. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge Prabhu Chavan has preferred W.A.Nos.200032/2022 and 200031/2022. (ix) The DCVC and the Tahsildhar have not properly followed the scheme and the mandate of the Act; 17. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge Prabhu Chavan has preferred W.A.Nos.200032/2022 and 200031/2022. Challenging the order of remand Ravindra Swamy has preferred Cross-objections No.200001/2022 in W.A.No.200031/2022. Submissions of Sri Jayakumar S Patil, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel for Sri Ganesh S Kalburagi learned advocate on record for Prabhu Chavan and Sri Prabhuling Navadgi, learned Advocate General for State Authorities. 18. The learned Single Judge's findings that at the time of issuance of the Caste Certificate and Caste Verification Certificate, Prabhu Chavan was District in-charge Minister of Bidar District and they are issued under his influence are factually incorrect. When Caste Certificates and Caste Verification Certificates were issued, Prabhu Chavan was not even a Minister. Since Ravindra Swamy's Caste Certificate itself was in doubt and he did not belong to Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe, he had no locus-standi to challenge the Caste Certificate or Caste Verification Certificate issued in favour of Prabhu Chavan. The revision petitions of Vijay Kumar and Ravindra Swamy were filed after two years of issue of Caste verification certificate. They only challenged the caste certificate issued in favour of Prabhu Chavan. That caste certificate merges in the order of Caste verification certificate of DCVC. Therefore, the revision petition and the writ petition themselves were not maintainable. Against the order of DCVC only an appeal lies before the Commissioner. Such appeal filed by Shankerrao was already concluded. Filing of revision petition and consequent writ petitions amount to overreaching the order passed in W.P.No.58264/2017. When the revision petition and the writ petition themselves were not maintainable, no mandamus could be issued to serve a futile purpose. Ravindra Swamy's revision petition as well as writ petitions lacked bonafides as he was a political rival. Initially in the writ petition of Ravindra Swamy, the endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting his revision petition was sought to be quashed. After the matter was heard Ravindra Swamy filed an application on 21/1/2022 for amendment of the petition to include the prayer for quashing the DCVC order. On filing the application learned Single Judge reserved matter for judgment and pronounced on 1/2/2022. In para No.2 of the impugned judgment learned Single Judge says that the amendment application is allowed. After the matter was heard Ravindra Swamy filed an application on 21/1/2022 for amendment of the petition to include the prayer for quashing the DCVC order. On filing the application learned Single Judge reserved matter for judgment and pronounced on 1/2/2022. In para No.2 of the impugned judgment learned Single Judge says that the amendment application is allowed. Prabhu Chavan was not given an opportunity to contest the said application nor amendment was carried out in the writ petition to include the prayer sought to be made out by amendment. The learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Caste Verification Committee also without giving opportunity to Prabhu Chavan either to meet the amendment application or the prayer made by way of amendment in the application. Therefore the order of the learned Single Judge is in violation of principles of natural justice. The said amendment was changing the nature of the case. Moreover there were no pleadings in support of such prayer. The learned Single Judge's finding that Prabhu Chavan wielded influence and fraud was without pleadings to that effect in the writ petitions. The order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to Rule 7(4) of the Karnataka SC/ST & other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc) Rules 1992 ('the Rules' for short). Thus the grant of relief so far as the order of the DCVC was without adjudication. Though Ravindra Swamy sought quashing of the order of DCVC by way of amendment, he did not make the DCVC as party to the petition. On that count also the order is untenable. The writ petitions themselves were not maintainable. Therefore, the cross- objection is also not maintainable. Applicability of the Act, was not a ground in the writ petition and that was raised only in the argument. The Act is applicable to the certificate issued for the purpose of election. Even the caste certificates issued relating to the election have to be verified only by DCVC. 19. In support of his submissions he relied on the following judgments. 1. G. Manjunath Vs. Muninanjappa,[Civil Appeal No .4533/2018 date of order 30/1/2010]. 2. Bharati Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 6 SCC 162 . 3. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465 . 4. Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 . 5. V.K.Majotra Vs. 1. G. Manjunath Vs. Muninanjappa,[Civil Appeal No .4533/2018 date of order 30/1/2010]. 2. Bharati Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 6 SCC 162 . 3. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465 . 4. Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 . 5. V.K.Majotra Vs. Union of India, (2003)8 SCC 40 . 6. J. Chitra Vs. State Level Vigilance Committee, (2021)9 SCC 811 . 7. Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka,(2020) 14 SCC 232. 8. State of Kerala vs. M.K.Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil (dead) and ors., AIR 1996 SC 906 9. Bishundeo Narain vs. Seogeni Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280 . Submissions of Sri G.K. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Shivanand Patil, learned advocate on record for Sri Ravindra Swamy. 20. The learned Single Judge on considering all contentions remanded the matter to the DCVC, there is no substantial injustice or error in the said order. The object of the Act is to issue certificate for the purpose of public employment and education. Whatever grounds Prabhu Chavan has, could have been urged by appearing before the Deputy Commissioner in the Revision Petition filed by Ravindra Swamy and Vijay kumar. Therefore issuance of Mandamus has not caused any injustice to Prabhu Chavan. Sec. 4 of the Act requires the Deputy Commissioner to hear the revision petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the application of Ravindra Swamy without hearing Ravindra Swamy. Therefore such order of the Deputy Commissioner was contrary to Sec. 4-F and in violation of principles of natural justice. In the Writ petition the particulars of fraud and undue influence need not be pleaded as required under the CPC. The certificate under the Act can be issued only for the purpose of education and employment and not for election. DCVC has no power to issue validity certificate which was sought for election. The order of DCVC was without jurisdiction. The order challenged by Shankerrao related to a caste certificate issued in Form-D. Ravindra Swamy also held a caste certificate. Until that is set aside, he has locus standi. Since the order of DCVC was null and void, the amendment to quash the same was not required. However that was sought on a safer side. The order challenged by Shankerrao related to a caste certificate issued in Form-D. Ravindra Swamy also held a caste certificate. Until that is set aside, he has locus standi. Since the order of DCVC was null and void, the amendment to quash the same was not required. However that was sought on a safer side. So far as Cross-objection, the learned Single Judge should not have remanded the matter to the DCVC and should have quashed the order of DCVC. The document shows that the Prabhu Chavan was not born in Karnataka. Despite the Commissioner directing the Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry on Shankerrao withdrawing the appeal, the Deputy commissioner sat over the matter. That shows the influence wielded by Prabhu Chavan. DCVC does not refer to the letter of Civil Right Enforcement Cell dtd. 1/1/2016. Prabhu Chavan has not produced any documents in proof of domicile. Therefore the appeals are liable to be dismissed and cross- objection deserves to be allowed. 21. In support of his submissions he relied on the following judgments. 1. Real Estate Agencies Vs State of Goa, (2012) 12 SCC 170 . 2. Union of India Vs Ramesh Gandhi, (2012) 1 SCC 476 . 3. A.V. Papayya Sastri Vs Govt. of A.P., (2007)4 SCC 221 . 4. United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Rajendra Singh and other, AIR 2000 SC 1165 . 22. On consideration of rival submissions and the material on record, the point that are arises for consideration is "Whether the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is sustainable in law?". Analysis Reg. Applicability of Act, 1990 and Rules 1992: 23. Having regard to the contention of the Counsel for writ petitioners Vijaya Kumar and Ravindra Swamy that the provisions of the Act 1990 and Rules 1992 are applicable only to the caste certificate issued for the purpose of education and public employment and therefore DCVC could not have issued validity certificate to Prabhu Chavan regarding caste certificate issued for the purpose of contesting the elections, the first question is whether the Act and Rules apply to the caste certificate issued for the purpose of an election. 24. It is to be noted that the title of the Act is Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990. 24. It is to be noted that the title of the Act is Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990. If the Act was only for the purpose of education and employment, the word 'etc.' could not have been used in the title of the Act. It cannot be presumed that word in the statute is superfluously or redundantly used. Therefore it has to be concluded that the certificate obtained under the Act 1990 and the Rules 1992 for the purpose other than education and employment are also governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 25. The larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dtd. 30/1/2020 in G.Manjunath's case referred to supra which related to a caste certificate issued for the purpose of contesting election held as follows: "We are informed by learned Counsel appearing at the Bar that there is a specialized committee which has been set up by the State of Karnataka to determine the various caste claims that are made for purposes such as employment and admissions to the educational institutions. However, it is certain that the Verification Committee is a specialized committee which ordinarily looks into such matters and determines the validity of caste claim. Therefore, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we consider it appropriate to refer the following question to the said committee for determination: (i) Whether the appellant viz., G.Manjunatha belongs to the scheduled caste known as "Budaga Jangama' or whether he belongs to the 'Byragi' caste of Other Backward Classes in the State of Karnataka. The aforesaid committee shall hear the parties and permit them to lead oral and documentary evidence. The enquiry shall be conducted by the Committee according to the Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990. The Committee shall submit its report before this Court within a period of three months from the date of first meeting of the committee on the issue." (Emphasis Supplied) 26. In Bharati Reddy's case referred to supra the certificate issued by DCVC for the purpose of election was upheld. The Committee shall submit its report before this Court within a period of three months from the date of first meeting of the committee on the issue." (Emphasis Supplied) 26. In Bharati Reddy's case referred to supra the certificate issued by DCVC for the purpose of election was upheld. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the caste certificate issued for the purpose of election is not subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and therefore DCVC had no jurisdiction to issue validity certificate. Reg. Maintainability of Revision Petition: 27. To serve the purpose of writ of mandamus, the revision petitions of Vijayakumar and Ravindra Swamy before the Deputy Commissioner shall be maintainable. Mr.Ravindra Swamy and Vijaya Kumar in their revision petitions filed under Sec. 4-F of the Act on 6/3/2020 and 26/5/2020 challenged the caste certificate dtd. 4/2/2013 issued in favour of Prabhu Chavan. The same caste certificate was admittedly questioned by Shankerrao by filing complaint dtd. 16/2/2014 before the Minister for Social Welfare Department. On his reference, DCVC conducted the enquiry and issued verification certificate dtd. 20/11/2017 in favour of Prabhu Chavan considering the material placed before the Committee. In view of such order of DCVC, the order of Tahsildar dtd. 4/2/2013 issuing caste certificate merged into the order of DCVC and has become integral part of the order of DVCV dtd. 20/11/2017. 28. Admittedly Shankerrao filed W.P.No.58264/2017 (GM CC) challenging the said order came to be dismissed on 6/3/2018 on the ground that his remedy is to file appeal under Sec. 4-D(1) of the Act before the Commissioner and the Appellate Authority, Social Welfare Department. Accordingly, he filed Appeal No.1/2018-19. However, the said appeal was dismissed on 7/5/2018 as withdrawn. Consequently, the validity certificate issued by DCVC holds the field until that is set aside by any competent authority. 29. The learned Single Judge holds that though the Commissioner on dismissing the appeal of Shankerrao under the order dtd. 7/5/2018 had directed the Deputy Commissioner to constitute a Committee, hold an enquiry and submit report within one month, the Deputy Commissioner had not complied the same, under the influence of Prabhu Chavan. Much was argued on behalf of Ravindra Swamy and Vijay Kumar relying on the said observations to impute undue influence to Prabhu Chavan. However, the interim order of the learned Single Judge dtd. Much was argued on behalf of Ravindra Swamy and Vijay Kumar relying on the said observations to impute undue influence to Prabhu Chavan. However, the interim order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 12/11/2020 itself shows that the Deputy Commissioner had taken action and the learned Single Judge taking exception to that directed the authorities not to precipitate the matter. The said order reads as follows: "Learned Additional Government Advocate seeks two weeks time to file statement of objections. Perusal of Annexure - H would clearly establish the fact that the complainant in Appeal No.1/2018-19 before the respondent No.3 herein has made a submission on 27/4/2018 to withdraw the complaint. In furtherance of the same, the respondent No.3 has permitted the complainant therein to withdraw the same by imposing cost of Rs.1,00,000.00. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has constituted a Committee to investigate the matter and to file the report within one month. The respondent No.3 is directed to file affidavit stating under which provision of law, the respondent No.3 has constituted a Committee to investigate the matter. The respondents are directed not to precipitate the matter in furtherance of Annexure - H dtd. 7/5/2018. List this matter on 26/11/2020." (Emphasis supplied) 30. Under the aforesaid circumstances, there is no merit in the contention that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that Deputy Commissioner did not hold any enquiry under the influence of Prabhu Chavan is inconsistent with his own interim order dtd. 12/11/2020 and thus erroneous. 31. The Act provides two channels for challenging the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar and the validity certificate issued by the DCVC. Sec. 4-B of the Act provides for appeal to the Assistant Commissioner against the order passed by the Tahsildar under Sec. 4-A of the Act for issuance of caste certificate. Sec. 4-F provides for filing revision against the order passed by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner under Ss. 4-A and 4-B of the Act. Whereas Sec. 4-C of the Act provides for verification of the caste certificate on the application of the candidate to whom the caste certificate is issued or on the application of the educational institutions or the appointing authority in case of an employment. Against an order passed under Sec. 4-C of the Act, only an appeal lies to the Appellate Authority mentioned under Sec. 4-D of the Act. 32. Against an order passed under Sec. 4-C of the Act, only an appeal lies to the Appellate Authority mentioned under Sec. 4-D of the Act. 32. At least the finding of this Court in W.P.No.58264/2017 that against the DCVC's order only an appeal under Sec. 4-D of the Act lies to the Commissioner has become final. Under the aforesaid circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for Prabhu Chavan the attempt of Ravindra Swamy and Vijay Kumar to challenge the order of Tahsildar dtd. 4/2/2013 by filing revision petition amounts to overreaching the order of this Court in W.P.No.58264/2017. Therefore the said revision petitions were not maintainable. Consequently issuance of mandamus to the Deputy Commissioner would serve no purpose. Reg. Locus standi, Delay and latches 33. Power under Article 226 of Constitution cannot be exercised if there is delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. To seek mandamus for implementation of the order dtd. 7/5/2018 the writ petition shall be promptly filed and the persons seeking such mandamus should have some locus-standi. In Ayub Khan Pataan's case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle with the proceedings of caste certificate unless he has a locus standi/legal right. Moreover caste certificate issued in favour of Ravindra Swamy itself is under cloud in view of the judgment passed against him in W.A.No.200065/2022. 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 8 of the judgment in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case referred to supra relying on its earlier judgment in Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) LRS,(2017)6 SCC 459. held that an action, whether on an application of the parties or suo-moto must be taken within the period prescribed by law, if no such period is prescribed under any law, that must be taken within a reasonable time. It was further held that, if an application is made after unreasonably long time, such application is liable to be dismissed. 35. In this case, the first caste certificate was issued in the year 2008, the one under challenge was issued in 2013, DCVC's order was passed on 20/11/2017 and the order of the Commissioner was dtd. 7/5/2018. Whereas the writ petitions were filed in 2020 without justifying such delay. The caste certificate issued in 2008 was not questioned at all. 35. In this case, the first caste certificate was issued in the year 2008, the one under challenge was issued in 2013, DCVC's order was passed on 20/11/2017 and the order of the Commissioner was dtd. 7/5/2018. Whereas the writ petitions were filed in 2020 without justifying such delay. The caste certificate issued in 2008 was not questioned at all. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order ignoring the aforesaid facts acted contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case referred to supra. Reg. Fraud and undue influence: 36. The entire order of the learned Single Judge reels around the presumption and inference that the DCVC has passed the order dtd. 20/11/2017 and withdrawal of appeal by Shankerrao was under the political influence of Prabhu Chavan as he was the District in-charge Minister, therefore that amounts to fraud. Prabhu Chavan contends that neither on 4/2/2013, 20/11/2017, 7/5/2018 nor during that period he was a Minister, much less the District in-charge Minister. He claims that the learned Single Judge was prejudiced only based on such bald and scurrilous allegations without any material to substantiate the same. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge's observation that Counsel for Prabhu Chavan during the course of arguments admitted that he was the Minister during that period is incorrect. 37. As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel representing the Advocate on record for Prabhu Chavan, the fraud and undue influence are serious matters and the particulars of the same need to be pleaded and established. Just on the scurrilous allegations, the Courts cannot accept the same, merely because the other party is holding some Public Post. In the writ petitions it was not pleaded that during the above said period Prabhu Chavan was the Minister/District incharge Minister nor the same was admitted/pleaded in the statement of objections of Prabhu Chavan. The petitioners had not even filed affidavit of Shankerrao or placed any material to show that Prabhu Chavan wielded influence on Shankerrao, Tahsildar, Deputy Commissioner or Members of DCVC. Such imputations should not have been accepted without appropriate pleadings or material to substantiate the same. Order VI Rule 4 of CPC mandates that the particulars of fraud and undue influence shall be pleaded. It was contended that Order VI Rule 4 of CPC is not applicable to the writ proceedings. Such imputations should not have been accepted without appropriate pleadings or material to substantiate the same. Order VI Rule 4 of CPC mandates that the particulars of fraud and undue influence shall be pleaded. It was contended that Order VI Rule 4 of CPC is not applicable to the writ proceedings. In submitting so, learned Counsel for Ravindra Swamy was oblivious of Rule 2(2) and 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 which say that the petitioner shall plead all relevant facts which have given occasion to the petition and wherever not provided in the Rules, CPC shall apply. 38. The Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court as long back in 1951 in para 22 of the judgment in Bishundeo's case referred to supra in this regard has held as follows: "22. We turn next to the questions of undue influence and coercion. Now it is to be observed that these have not been separately pleaded. It is true they may overlap in part in some cases but they are separate and separable categories in law and must be separately pleaded. It is also to be observed that no proper particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. " (Emphasis Supplied) 39. The learned Single Judge acted contrary to the aforesaid judgment in Bishundeo's case and facts and circumstances of the case in holding that Prabhu Chavan obtained caste certificate and validity certificate by wielding undue influence on the concerned Officers/officials. Reg. Amendment application and principles of natural Justice: 40. So far as quashing DCVC's order based on an amendment application, in para 8 of the judgment in V.K.Majotra's case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in issuing the directions beyond the pleadings, the Judges of the High Court overstepped their jurisdiction. Reg. Amendment application and principles of natural Justice: 40. So far as quashing DCVC's order based on an amendment application, in para 8 of the judgment in V.K.Majotra's case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in issuing the directions beyond the pleadings, the Judges of the High Court overstepped their jurisdiction. It was further observed that the writ Courts would be well advised to decide the petition on the points raised in the petition and in a rare case any additional points are to be raised, then the concerned and the affected parties should be put to notice on additional points to satisfy the principles of natural justice. 41. In view of the above judgment, learned Single Judge committed serious error in allowing the amendment application which was filed belatedly without hearing the affected parties. On allowing such application not even the petition was amended and opportunity was given to Prabhu Chavan to file his counter to the amended petition. By way of amendment only a prayer was sought to be incorporated to quash the order of DCVC dtd. 20/11/2017 without setting forth any grounds for the same. Thereby the principles of natural justice were glaringly violated vitiating the impugned order. 42. It was contended that the order of DCVC was the outcome of the fraud, therefore the same was nullity, warranted quashing even in the absence of a prayer by way of amendment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 6 of the judgment in M.K.Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil's case referred to supra in this regard held as follows: "6. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case. We are of the view that the order passed inter parties in C.R.P. 3440 of 1977 dtd. 2/11/1977, has become final, and it concludes the matter. The observations made in the proceedings, at the instance of the 1st respondent regarding the validity of the order of the Board, in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977, will not, in any way, affect the legality and validity of the proceedings declining to implead respondents No.3 and 4 or the order passed in Revision therefrom-C.R.P.3440 of 1977. It is true that the proceedings dtd. 28/6/1977 was observed to be void in law in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977, filed by the first respondent. It is true that the proceedings dtd. 28/6/1977 was observed to be void in law in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977, filed by the first respondent. In our opinion, even a void order or decision rendered between parties cannot be said to be non- existent in all cases and in all situations. Ordinarily, such an order will, in fact be effective inter parties until it is successfully avoided or challenged in higher forum. Mere use of the word "void" is not determinative of its legal impact. The word "void" has a relative rather than an absolute meaning. It only conveys the idea that the order is invalid or illegal. It can be avoided. There are degrees of invalidity, depending upon the gravity of the infirmity, as to whether it is, fundamental or otherwise and in this case, the only complaint about the initiation of the suo moto proceedings by Board was, that it was not initiated on intimation by the State Land Board about the non-filing of the statement as required by Sec. 85(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In our opinion, this is not a case where the infirmity is fundamental. It is unnecessary to consider the matter further." (Emphasis supplied) 43. The very fact of Shankerrao challenging the order of DCVC before this Court in writ petition No.58264/2017 and before the Commissioner in appeal goes to show that the parties never treated the same as void. When the said order was considered by this Court and the Commissioner, at this stage, it is not open to contend that the order was null and void, therefore even in the absence of prayer to that effect the learned Single Judge could have quashed that. Reg. Scope of interference in DCVC order: 44. According to Prabhu Chavan, the caste/validity certificate issued in his favour is being challenged incessantly by one or the other just to harass him due to political rivalry. The above narrated facts and circumstances go to show that though the caste certificate was originally issued in 2008, that was not challenged. Prabhu Chavan admittedly was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly of Aurad B Taluk since 2008 continuously. His trouble started when he was elected for the second term also during 2013-2014. There onwards one after another as and when they desired initiated proceedings against him in the garb of validity of caste certificate/DCVC order. Prabhu Chavan admittedly was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly of Aurad B Taluk since 2008 continuously. His trouble started when he was elected for the second term also during 2013-2014. There onwards one after another as and when they desired initiated proceedings against him in the garb of validity of caste certificate/DCVC order. That probabilizes his contention that his opponents abusing the process of the Court are initiating such proceedings. The scheme of Rule 7 (4) and (5) shows that enquiry by the DCVC and the appeal against the order of DCVC shall be concluded in a time bound manner. The appeal shall be disposed of within 45 days from the date of filing of the appeal. Those provisions also indicate that DCVC order cannot be meddled at the sweet will of disgruntled party after lapse of several years. 45. The larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of the judgment in Bharati Reddy's case referred to supra has held there is statutory presumption that caste certificate would be valid until cancelled by competent authority. It was further held that the High Court was not justified in issuing a writ of quo-warranto prima facie doubting the same to be fraudulent. In this case also the learned Single Judge doubted the caste certificate/DCVC order to be fraudulent only on the ground that Prabhu Chavan was the District incharge Minister, during that period which was factually in correct. 46. In Madhuri Patils' case referred to supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court should not under Article 226 of the Constitution ordinarily interfere with the finding of the verification Committee. 47. In para 10 of the judgment in Chitra's case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the DCVC upheld the caste certificate that shall not be reopened unless that is challenged in the Appellate Forum. It was further held that repeated enquiries for verification of caste certificates would be detrimental to the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes. It was held that unless the caste certificates are vitiated by fraud or without inquiry, they shall not be reopened. In para 11 of the judgment it was held that State Level Scrutiny Committee did not had the power to reopen the caste certificate that was issued by DCVC long back without any appeal filed against that. 48. It was held that unless the caste certificates are vitiated by fraud or without inquiry, they shall not be reopened. In para 11 of the judgment it was held that State Level Scrutiny Committee did not had the power to reopen the caste certificate that was issued by DCVC long back without any appeal filed against that. 48. The judgments relied on by learned Counsel for Ravindra Swamy and Vijay Kumar in A.V.Papayya's case, Ramesh Gandhi's case, Real Estate Agency's case cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of the present case. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the cross- objection fails. Hence the following: ORDER W.A.Nos.200031/2022 and 200032/2022 are hereby allowed with costs. Cross objection No.200001/2022 filed in W.A.No.200031/2022 is hereby dismissed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. W.P.No.225917/2020 and W.P.No.226907/2020 are hereby dismissed with costs.