Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
M.NAGAPRASANNA
T.H. Hosamani S/o Hanumanthappa Hosamani – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's relief sought in court. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of the factual background. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding the jurisdiction of civil rights enforcement cell. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. consideration of counsel's submissions. (Para 8) |
| 5. analysis of statutory provisions and related judgments. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. court's conclusions on legality of actions. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. court's final order and implications. (Para 14) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“A. To call for records relating to the issue of the impugned order bearing No. Ji.Sa.Ka.Aa./Ra/11/2010-11 Sa.Ka-3/CR-dated 21.06.2014 passed by the Respondent No.4 vide Annexure-G and the Proceedings of the Meeting dated 17.05.2014 passed by the Respondent No.3 vide Annexure-F together with the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 28.02.2017 passed in Appeal No. CR-12/2014-15 vide ANNEXURE-M and after perusal set aside the same.
B. To pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard the learned Counsel Sri. Vijaykumar Bajantri for Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel
The Civil Rights Enforcement Cell lacks jurisdiction to initiate investigations without a prior referral from the District Caste Verification Committee, rendering such actions null and void.
The Caste Scrutiny Committee lacks the authority to review a validated caste certificate; it can only cancel it if fraud is proven, and must afford a fair hearing as dictated by principles of natural....
Caste claim – Forged and fabricated - - Forefather of the respondent no.3 were “Sikh Chamar”, the respondent no.2 accepted the caste claim of the respondent no.3 as “Mochi” which is a separate caste ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a person with a case based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court, and knowingly producing fabricated and fraudulent documents to ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the procedural requirement for issuing a show cause notice when the vigilance report is in favor of the petitioner, as required by Rule 17(11)(i) o....
The Sub-Divisional Officer lacks jurisdiction to cancel caste certificates; only the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee can do so after following due process.
Caste certificates issued after due procedure possess a presumption of validity, which cannot be disregarded without substantial evidence of fraud or misrepresentation.
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 orde....
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
