Caste certificates must be challenged through statutory procedures, not writ petitions; disputes regarding caste status are to be resolved within the framework of the applicable legislation.

ORDER :

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 24-03-2022 passed by the 2^nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District cancelling the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 18-08-2021.

2. Heard Sri Arun L. Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4, Sri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, Sri V.M. Sheelvant, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Sri V.M. Banakar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7.

3. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner claims to be belonging to ‘Veerkudi Vellam’ caste which is depicted in Other Backward Class-A Category. On the said claim, the petitioner files an application before the jurisdictional Tahsildar for grant of caste certificate depicting him as belonging to the said caste. The petitioner is said to have produced all the documents in support of his claim for issuance of caste certificate. It is the averment in the petition, that the Tahsildar after verifying all the documents and following the procedure under law issues a caste certificate depicting the petitioner to be belonging to OBC-A category. On the strength of the said caste certificate, the petitioner contests election to the Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation in Ward No.51 and gets elected as a Corporator. After the election, the election to the post of Mayor was scheduled to be held on 28-05-2022.

4. When things stood thus, the 6^th respondent approaches the Assistant Commissioner/3^rd respondent questioning the caste certificate dated 18-08-2021 under Section 4(b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The challenge is rejected in terms of the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 21-12-2021. The 6^th respondent then prefers a revision before the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No.2 under Section 4(f) of the Act. The petitioner files his objections before the Revisional Authority and again produces all the documents that led to issuance of caste certificate in his favour. The Revisional Authority, by the impugned order dated 24-03-2022, cancels the caste certificate of the petitioner.

5. In the interregnum, it appears, that one of the candidates who had contested the elections had challenged the caste certificate issued to the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No.103386 of 2021 seeking a prayer of quo warranto against the petitioner. The said petition is said to be dismissed for want of maintainability. Against the said order, a writ appeal is preferred in Writ Appeal No.100025 of 2022 and the said appeal is said to be pending adjudication at the hands of the Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the 2^nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner in cancelling the caste certificate issued in his favour is at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to examine the caste certificate issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, which Act is specific for entertaining the challenge to the caste certificate issued for the purpose of services under the State and admission to educational institutions. The further submission of the learned counsel is that the caste certificate issued by the 4^th respondent/Tahsildar is for the purpos