IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 43326 OF 2015 (GM-CC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O VENKATESHARAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O BISILE VILLAGE, AMRUTHURU HOBALI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-572101.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER Digitally TUMKUR SUB DIVISION signed by SUMA TUMKUR-572101.

Location:

HIGH

3. THE TAHASILDAR COURT OF KARNATAKA KUNIGAL TALUK KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101

4. M.C. KRISHNARAJ S/O CHINNAVENKATAIAH AGE : 52 YEARS R/O MANGALA VILLAGE, YEDIYOORU HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572142 AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 12.10.2023 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN RESPECT OF THE VIDE ORDER NO.P.C.R.:CR:02:2015-16 DATED 10.09.2015 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND QUASH THE ORDER VIDE NO.P.C.R:CR:02:/2015-16 DATED 10.09.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ORDER TO CANCEL THE ST CASTE ISSUED TO PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A IS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ILLEGAL.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.P.C.R:C.R.:02/2015-16 dated 10.09.2015 issued by the respondent No.3 by which the caste certificate issued to her was cancelled.

2. (i) The petitioner claims that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe and a caste certificate to that effect was issued by the Tahsildar on 19.05.2015. Based on the caste certificate, the petitioner contested the elections to the Panchayat and was declared as a returned candidate. Later elections to the post of President and Vice-President was scheduled on 02.07.2015. In the meanwhile, Election Petition No.2/2015 was filed before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Kunigal, against the petitioner challenging her election as a member of the Panchayat, on the ground that she did not belong to Scheduled Tribe. The Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Kunigal, transferred the said election petition to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, which allowed the election petition in terms of the order dated 25.01.2018 and set aside the election of the petitioner on that ground. During the pendency of the election petition, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order canceling the caste certificate issued to the petitioner.

(ii) Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.3 having once issued the caste certificate is functus officio and he cannot review or recall the caste certificate granted and it is only for the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner to do so. He therefore, contends that the impugned order is one without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the orders of this Court in W.P.No.23470/2011 (D.D. 08.08.2011), W.P.No.4791/2025 (D.D. 16.02.2015) and W.P.No.44306/2011 (D.D. 20.09.2018)

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 fairly submitted that the respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to recall or cancel the caste certificate once issued. He did not dispute that if any person is aggrieved by the issuance of the caste certificate, he/she is entitled to file an appeal under Section 4B of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.,) Act, 1990 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1990') or a review is permissible by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4F of the Act, 1990.

5. In that view of the matter, since it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 that respo