The Assistant Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals against the cancellation of caste certificates by the Tahsildar, as the Tahsildar's actions were merely implementing the Committee's order, rendering such proceedings coram non-judice.

ORDER

M. Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court calling in question entire proceedings before the 1st respondent/Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-Division, Bengaluru pending in file No.MSC/CR/ 113/20-21 as coram non-judice.

2. Heard Smt. Sadhana Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri C.Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri R.B. Sadasivappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

3. The facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The issue revolves round the 5th respondent and her caste certificate. On 30-06-2015 a caste certificate is issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk on an application filed by the 5th respondent that she belongs to Nayaka community, a Scheduled Tribe. On the strength of the caste certificate, it appears that the 5th respondent contested election to Councillor of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short). On 05-09-2015, the petitioner registers a complaint before the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement complaining that the 5th respondent had obtained a Scheduled Tribe certificate fraudulently. The said complaint was transferred by the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement to the District Caste Verification Committee, Bangalore Urban District (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee' for short), the 4th respondent, Chairman of which is the Deputy Commissioner. After long drawn proceedings, the Committee cancels the caste certificate issued in favour of the 5th respondent on 26-06-2018.

4. The 5th respondent prefers an appeal before the 3rd respondent/ Scheduled Tribe Welfare and Appellate Authority ('Appellate Authority' for short), which by its order dated 15-09-2018 sets aside the order passed by the Committee dated 26-06-2018 and remits the matter back to the Committee. After the said remand, the Committee upholds the caste certificate issued to the 5th respondent depicting her to be belonging to Nayaka community, a Scheduled Tribe. This order is challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority in terms of its order dated 19-09-2019 sets aside the order of the Committee directing the Committee to furnish reports upon which the earlier order was passed to both the parties and decide the matter afresh. After the said remand by the Appellate Authority, the Committee by its order dated 05-08-2020 directs that the complaint could not be entertained before the Committee, as the caste certificate was issued for election purpose which was not covered under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment Etc.) Act, 1990 and the Rules framed thereunder in the year 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'the Rules' for short). The complaint thus comes to be dismissed. This order has become final.

5. The 2nd respondent/Tahsildar, in terms of order of the Committee dated 26-06-2018, cancels the caste certificate issued to the 5th respondent in terms of his order dated 23-09-2020. The 5th respondent challenges the said order of the Tahsildar by filing an appeal before the 1st respondent/Assistant Commissioner. These proceedings are challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Smt. Sadhana Desai would vehemently contend that the proceedings before the 1st respondent/Assistant Commissioner are coram non-judice, as he has no authority to consider the appeal. It is her further submission that the caste certificate issued in favour of the 5th respondent comes to be cancelled by the Tahsildar not on independent inquiry conducted by him but only following the order of the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the Committee dated 26-06-2018. Therefore, if it is following the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner, a subordinate officer cannot and will not sit as an Appellate Authority over the order of a superior officer. It is her submission that it is coram non-