SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Bharati Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1763 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1532 of 2018)
Decided On : 06-03-2018
(1964) 4 SCR 575 – Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of Quo Warranto – Jurisdiction limited to judicial review of decision making process and not of the decision itself – High Court finding process of issuing caste certificate prima facie fraudulent – Leaving it to be decided by Caste Verification Committee – Caste certificate itself valid till cancelled by the verification Committee – But issued the writ of quo warranto – Not justified – Writ of quo warranto cannot be issued on the basis of assumptions, inferences or suspicion – It could be issued only if the Income and Caste Certificate was held to be void or after it was invalidated by the Competent Authority. (Para 18, 22, 24)
(2010) 7 SCC 202; (1992) Supp (3) SCC 210; (1964) 4 SCR 575; AIR 1999 SC 1723 : (1999) 4 SCC 526; (2009) 7 SCC 387; (2006) 9 SCC 375; (2001) 7 SCC 231; (2003) 4 SCC 712; (2002) 6 SCC 269; (1993) 4 SCC 119; (2017) 8 SCC 670; (1994) 6 SCC 241; (2013) 1 SCC 501; (2006) 11 SCC 731; (2010) 9 SCC 655; (2011) 4 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(1974) 2 SCC 121 – Referred
(c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of quo warranto – Cannot be issued unless the Court is satisfied that the incumbent was not eligible at all as per the statutory provisions for being appointed or elected to the public office or that he/she has incurred disqualification to continue in the said office – This satisfaction should be founded on the indisputable facts. (Para 34)
Facts of the case:
the appellant was elected on 28.03.2016 as a member of the Zilla Panchayat from 13- Badanahatti Constituency, Ballari District, Karnataka which was reserved for General (Women) Category. Later, the State Government published a notification on 15.04.2016 declaring the reservation for the post of Adhyaksha and Upa-Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayats in the State. In Ballari Zilla Panchayat, the post of Adhyaksha was reserved for the category of Backward Caste-B (Women). After the said notification, since the appellant intended to contest the election to the post of Adhyaksha of Ballari Zilla Panchayat, she made an application on 22.04.2016 to the jurisdictional Tahshildar for issuance of Income and Caste Certificate, a certificate which was a prerequisite for submitting the nomination form for the election to the post of Adhayaksha. That certificate was issued by the Tahshildar on 26.04.2016 on the basis of which the appellant contested the election held on 29.04.2016 and was declared elected. As required in terms of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Act, 1990 and the Rules framed thereunder, the Income and Caste Certificate has been forwarded to the District Caste Verification Committee Ballari. The process of verification thereof is still in progress.
Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 filed a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed. The division Bench, however, reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
High Court could not have issued a writ of quo warranto until the Income and Caste Certificate issued in favour of the appellant, on the basis of which she participated in the election for the post of Adhyaksha and got elected, was to be declared void or invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. This appeal, by special leave, takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench dated 04.12.2017 in Writ Appeal No. 5872 of 2017.
2. Briefly stated, pursuant to notification dated 04.12.2015, elections were held and the appellant was elected on 28.03.2016 as a member of the Zilla Panchayat from 13- Badanahatti Constituency, Ballari District, Karnataka which was reserved for General (Women) Category. Later, the State Government published a notification on 15.04.2016 declaring the reservation for the post of Adhyaksha and Upa-Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayats in the State. In Ballari Zilla Panchayat, the post of Adhyaksha was reserved for the category of Backward Caste-B (Women). After the said notification, since the appellant intended to contest the election to the post of Adhyaksha of Ballari Zilla Panchayat, she made an application on 22.04.2016 to the jurisdictional Tahshildar for issuance of Income and Caste Certificate, a certificate which was a prerequisite for submitting the nomination form for the election to the post of Adhayaksha. That certificate was issued by the Tahshildar on 26.04.2016 on the basis of which the appellant contested the election held on 29.04.2016 and was declared elected. As required in terms of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Act, 1990 and the Rules framed thereunder, the Income and Caste Certificate has been forwarded to the District Caste Verification Committee Ballari. The process of verification thereof is still in progress.
3. According to the appellant, at the behest of the unsuccessful candidates who could not file any election petition to challenge the election of the appellant, respondent Nos. 6 to 9 filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad being Writ Petition No. 106417 of 2016, about 3 months after the election of the appellant as Adhyaksha. The substance of the allegation made in the said writ petition against the appellant was that she played fraud on the Government and public by submitting a false affidavit before the Tahshildar for issuance of Income and Caste Certificate, on the basis of which she contested the election for the post of Adhyaksha Zilla Panchayat and got elected to the said post, to which she was otherwise not entitled to or qualified for. The allegation about the nature of fraud committed by the appellant can be discerned from the assertions made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition, which read thus:
“6. It is submitted that the 6th Respondent in order to grab the post of Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat has submitted a bogus and false caste certificate to show that she belongs to the Backward community-B Category obtained from the 5th Respondent. It is further submitted that in the application filed by 6th Respondent to 5th Respondent for issuance of caste certificate, she filed an affidavit stating that her livelihood is agriculture and that she owns 1.03 acres of agricultural land in Badanahatti village and 3.50 Acres of land in Sy. No. 36A in Yarrangaligi village. Further she also declared that her family income is not more than Rs. 3,50,000/- per annum from all other sources and that she and her husband are not assessed to Income Tax and Commercial Tax. The said declaration made by the 6th Respondent is totally false to the knowledge of herself, which is clear from the Affidavit filed by the 6th Respondent before the 2nd Respondent while contesting for the member of Bellary Zilla Panchayat General Elections. It is further submitted that the 6th Respondent in her affidavit dated 06.02.2016 declared that she is getting rent of Rs. 1,40,000/- per annum and her husband getting 4,80,000/- per annum, which details are found in paragraph 4-A. This itself shows that her family income from one source only is more than 3,50,000/- as declared in the affidavit dated 26.04.2016 f
Dr. K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
The University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao
Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat
K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan
Kurapati Maria Das v. Ambedkar Seva Samajan
Arun Singh alias Arun Kr. Singh v. State of Bihar
B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu
Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commr. & Secy. to Government of Haryana
Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira
Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development
Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.