The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court emphasized the importance of availing alternative remedies provided under the Act before approaching the court for redressal.

JUDGMENT

VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. - This intra court appeal is filed assailing the order dtd. 30/5/2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17975/2010.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the jurisdictional Tahsildar had issued a caste certificate in favour of the appellant stating that he belongs to Bhovi community which falls under Scheduled Caste. The said caste certificate was challenged by respondent no.1 herein before this Court in W.P.No.6366/2008 and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to avail the alternative remedy of appeal as provided under the statute. Respondent no.1, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Sec. 4-B of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe & Other Backward Caste (Reservation of Appointments, etc.,) Act, 1990 (for short, 'the Act') and the Appellate Authority vide its order dtd. 24/3/2009 set aside the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant and the matter was remitted to the Tahsildar for holding fresh enquiry. This order was questioned by the appellant herein in W.P.No.8171/2009 and this Court had disposed of the said writ petition without interfering with the orders passed by the Appellate Authority with an observation that the Tahsildar shall decide the entire issue independently without being influenced by the observations made by the Appellate Authority in its orders. The Tahsildar, thereafter, held a fresh enquiry and passed an order dtd. 31/3/2010 declaring that the appellant belongs to Bhovi community. The said order was challenged by respondent no.1 before this Court in W.P.No.17975/2010 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order impugned and the matter was remitted back to the Tahsildar once again for fresh enquiry. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent no.3 in the writ petition has preferred this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge had erred in entertaining the writ petition though respondent no.1 had an efficacious alternative remedy under Ss. 4-B & 4-F of the Act. She submits that this Court in the first round of litigation in W.P.No.6366/2008 had relegated respondent no.1 to avail the alternative remedy of appeal and having regard to the said background, the learned Single Judge could not have entertained the writ petition without respondent no.1 availing the alternative remedy. She submits that on two occasions, the Tahsildar has considered the material available on record and issued caste certificate in favour of the appellant and for extraneous reasons, respondent no.1 has been initiating repeated proceedings against the appellant. She also submits that in the election petition which was filed before this Court in E.P.No.3/2008, reliance was placed on the caste certificate issued to the appellant, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the said caste certificate.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submits that the caste certificate was issued by the Tahsildar for the purpose of contesting the election. He submits that the Act does not provide for issuing such a caste certificate, and therefore, the alternative remedy of appeal was not availed. He also submits that the Tahsildar has issued the caste certificate without holding proper enquiry and without appreciating the material evidence available on record, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition.

6. Learned Special Counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 submits that the caste certificate issued under the provisions of the Act can also be used for the purpose of contesting the elections. He fairly submits that as against the order of the Tahsildar under Sec. 4-A of the