Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 280 (KAR)

Nityanand v. State of Karnataka

2024-04-19

M.I.ARUN

body2024
ORDER : Mr. M.I.Arun, J. - Aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2014 passed by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-H, order dated 30.01.2015 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-J & the order dated 25.02.2016 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-K, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he belongs to Bandi Community and the said Community is notified as Scheduled Caste under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. That a caste certificate was granted to him in this regard by respondent No.4 - Tahsildar. However, subsequently, an enquiry has been conducted and erroneously the same has been cancelled. It is further submitted that the order of cancellation passed by respondent No.4 has been upheld by respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner and subsequently by respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The petitioner has relied upon the School Leaving Certificate (Annexure-A to the writ petition); Transfer Certificate issued by the Education Department of the Karnataka State (Annexure-B to the writ petition); Caste Certificate of his father issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar (Annexure-C to the writ petition) and his own Caste Certificate issued by respondent No.4 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) and submits that he belongs to Bandi Community and for no reason, the impugned orders are passed considering him to be belonging to Baandhi Community and because of it he is not being considered as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community. 4. Per contra, Advocate for the respondents submits that, after due enquiry, respondent No.4 has come to the conclusion that the petitioner belongs to Baandhi Community and not Bandi Community. It is further submitted that, mere production of the School Leaving Certificate, the Transfer Certificate and the Caste Certificate of his father and that of the petitioner, is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner belongs to Bandi Community. 5. The question that arises for consideration in the instant case is, whether the authorities erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner belongs to Baandhi Community instead of Bandi Community as claimed by him. 6. The Presidential Notification issued in pursuance of the Article 341 of the Constitution of India mentions Bandi Community as a Scheduled Caste. The list of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe as per the order must be read as it is. 6. The Presidential Notification issued in pursuance of the Article 341 of the Constitution of India mentions Bandi Community as a Scheduled Caste. The list of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe as per the order must be read as it is. It is not open for the State Government or the Courts or the Tribunals or any other Authorities to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Caste specified in the notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. Article 348(1)(b) of the Constitution of India mandates that such a notification shall be in the English language. The same will have to be considered as the authoritative text. When the names of the Scheduled Caste are translated into any other language including Kannada, the translator has to take care that there is no error in the name of the Community. The content in the notification is published in English. Thus, in case of any confusion, the Courts or authorities will have to refer to the English Notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the instant case, the relevant notification in the English language specifies that the Community Bandi belongs to Scheduled Caste. In the light of the same, the documents far and against the petitioner have to be examined. The School Leaving Certificate (Annexure-A to the writ petition), the Caste Certificate of the father of the petitioner (Annexure-C to the writ petition) and the Caste Certificate of the petitioner (Annexure-D to the writ petition) are in English Language and they specify that the petitioner belongs to Bandi Community. 8. Annexure-B to the writ petition is in Kannada Language, which records that the petitioner belongs to VERNACULAR MATTER Community, which can be translated as Hindu (Bandi) Community. 9. Respondent No.4 in his order has come to the conclusion that, though the petitioner has produced the aforementioned documents (Vide Annexures-A to D to the writ petition), upon enquiry it is found that the petitioner belongs to Baandhi Community and not Bandi Community. But no reasons are assigned as to why respondent No.4 has come to such a conclusion. The order passed by respondent Nos.2 & 3 also uphold the order of respondent No.4 without assigning any reason as to why the documents at Annexures-A to D to the writ petition have to be disbelieved. 10. But no reasons are assigned as to why respondent No.4 has come to such a conclusion. The order passed by respondent Nos.2 & 3 also uphold the order of respondent No.4 without assigning any reason as to why the documents at Annexures-A to D to the writ petition have to be disbelieved. 10. No doubt that the burden of proving that a person belongs to Scheduled Caste is always on the person who claims to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste. But once, as in the instant case, the petitioner produces certain relevant documents, if the authorities want to disbelieve the same, it is for them to state the reason for doing so. They are always at liberty to come to a contrary conclusion based upon certain other reliable materials which are available to them. If they are passing an order cancelling an already existing Caste Certificate, they have to state specifically as to what are the materials available to them based on which they have come to a contrary conclusion and are cancelling the caste certificate already issued. In the instant case, no such reasons are forthcoming in the impugned orders. For that reason, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remitted back to respondent No.4 to make a fresh enquiry. 11. Advocate for the respondents in the course of the arguments further submitted that respondent No.4 may be permitted to refer the matter to the Director of Civil Rights Enforcement to enquire as to the Community to which the petitioner belongs to and after obtaining necessary reports from them, pass appropriate orders. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 18.11.2014 passed by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-H, order dated 30.01.2015 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-J & the order dated 25.02.2016 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-K to the writ petition are hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.4 to initiate a fresh enquiry as to what community the petitioner belongs to by referring the matter to the Director of Civil Rights Enforcement and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.