Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
G. NARENDAR, B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, JJ.
Peerappa S/o. Shivanappa Talawar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos.100367-100374 of 2017 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 19-07-2019
Karnataka Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and other backward classes Act 1990 - Section 5, 5-A, 5-B and 6 - No jurisdiction - Rigorous imprisonment - Procedure for issuance of a social status certificates - Whether caste certificate relied on by petitioner is validly given or not - Whether enquiry notice issued by 3rd respondent is illegal or otherwise contrary to law - Brief facts is that petitioners belong to Bedar caste and all petitioners hail from same family and that they are permanent residents of village - That they and their forefathers belong to Bedar caste which is categorized as a Schedule Tribe - That in certificate issued by school and other authorities caste of petitioners is described as Hindu Bedar/Barda - That words Bedar and Barda are synonymous - That Bedar and Barda are classified as Scheduled Tribe both by State and Central Government - Respondent Nos.4 and 5 who are in no way aggrieved and having no locus-standi are said to have lodged a complaint with 3rd respondent and on receipt of complaint 3rd respondent has initiated enquiry into genuineness of caste certificate and in this direction 3rd respondent issued an enquiry notice and directed petitioners to appear for enquiry and to produce such documents for purpose of investigation of complaint said to have been received by 3rd respondent – Held, Primary contention on behalf of appellant is that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have no authority in law nor or they aggrieved persons as defined under Act, cannot be appreciated for reason that what is preferred by respondent Nos.4 and 5 is not an appeal as defined under Act, but an information to competent authority and it cannot be argued that investigation is without jurisdiction as Act provides for prosecution of offenders 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 Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC Act, 1990 obviates any discussion in this regard - By said provisions act of obtaining a false certificate by practicing a fraud have been made penal offence punishable with imprisonment - It cannot be gainfully argued by 3rd respondent that they have no jurisdiction and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are mere informants and 3rd respondent admittedly being a police officer is competent to investigate any offence committed by petitioners in course of obtaining the certificates - Inspector would go to local place of residence and original place from which candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to town or city place from which he originally hailed from - Vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all facts of social status claimed by candidate or parent or guardian as case may be - He also should examine school records birth registration if any - He should also examine parent guardian or candidate in relation to their caste etc or such other persons who have knowledge or social status of candidate and then submit a report to Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in proforma in particular of 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 concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc - In fact even before aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment Karnataka State had passed Karnataka Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe and other backward classes Act 1990 and Rules in 1992 - After aforesaid judgment these acts and rules have been brought in conformity with aforesaid Judgment of Supreme Court - It is in this background 2nd respondent has issued notices calling for certain particulars in order to verify and scrutinize whether caste certificate relied on by the petitioner is validly given or not - Said authority has no jurisdiction to cancel caste certificate issued but he will only collect information and then submit a report - It is thereafter authority constituted under Act which would initiate proceedings if they choose to do so only after hearing petitioner appropriate orders would be passed - Whole exercise undertaken by 2nd respondent is to unearth truth - Apprehension of petitioner that he is going to cancel certificate he has no jurisdiction to do so and certificate is issued much prior to enactment which has no application has no substance - Writ appeals stand rejected
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. 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 i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
