SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT PETITION No.10108/2011 (GM-CC)

BETWEEN:

PANDURANGA,

S/O. KALOJI RAO,

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

WORKING AS POST MASTER,

MULKI POST OFFICE,

R/O. KOLLUR VILLAGE,

MANGALORE TALUK

DISTRICT: MANGALORE.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED TRIBE

WELFARE AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY,

KRISHI BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR,

HUDSON CIRCLE,

BANGALORE – 560 001.

2.

THE DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,

BY ITS PRESIDENT,

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

SOUTH KANARA,

MANGALORE.

3.

THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE

OFFICER AND MEMBER,

CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,

SOUTH CANARA,

MANGALORE.

- 2 -

4.

THE TAHASILDAR & MEMBER,

DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,

SOUTH CANARA,

MANGALORE.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI C. JAGADISH, SPL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL

FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS & QUASH THE ORDER DATED

07.02.2002 BY THE R2 AS PER ANNEXURE–S; AND QUASH THE

ORDER DATED 19.01.2011, PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER

ANNEXURE–T.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

The present writ petition is filed questioning the

legality

and

correctness

of

the

order

dated

07/02/2002, in No.G SA KAA:TA SA:CR:75/2001-02

as per Annexure – S, passed by 2nd respondent and

quash the order dated 19/01/2011 passed by 1st

respondent, in Appeal No.DSTW/Appeal/CR-13/2004

as per Annexure – T.

- 3 -

Brief facts arising in this writ petition are

that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Kollur

Village, Mulki Hobli, Mangalore and belongs to “Marati”

Community, which is classified as Scheduled Tribe in

South Canara District. According to the petitioner, the

notification clearly indicates that “Marati” caste in

South Canara District is classified as Scheduled Tribe

as per the Notification dated 11/12/1986 issued by

Government of Karnataka, Social Welfare and Labour

Department. It is stated by the petitioner that

Tahsildar,

Mangalore

by

its

certificate

dated

29/03/1999 has declared the petitioner as the person

belonging to ‘Marati Community’, a Scheduled Tribe of

Dakshina Kannada (South Canara) Karnataka. It is

further stated that the certificate has also been issued

by the Head Master of the High School stating that the

petitioner belongs to ‘Marati Community’ which is a

Scheduled Tribe of Dakshina Kannada (South Canara)

- 4 -

and the respondent authorities also issued certificate

to family and relatives of the petitioner to the effect

that they belong to ‘Marati’ Community a Scheduled

Tribe of Dakshina Kannada (South Canara). This

being the state of affairs, 2nd respondent issued notice

directing 3rd respondent/Tahsildar to verify the caste

of the petitioner. Subsequently, another notice was

issued on 03/10/2001 by Social Welfare Department

to appear before Caste Verification Committee for an

enquiry on 28/01/2002 and accordingly statement of

the petitioner was recorded. The Caste Verification

Committee/2nd

respondent

vide

order

dated

07/02/2002 held that the petitioner does not belong

to ‘Marati’ Community a Scheduled Tribe in Dakshina

Kannada (South Canara) Karnataka but belongs to

‘Maratha Kshatriya Community’ and is not entitled to

the benefits available to Scheduled Tribe and directed

the District Administrator to initiate the action.

- 5 -

Aggrieved by the order dated 07/02/2002 the

petitioner preferred appeal before the Divisional

Commissioner, since Divisional Commissioner came to

be abolished, W.P. No.25658/2002 preferred before

this Court and the same was disposed of with a

direction to file an appeal within two months before

the Director for Tribal Welfare, Bangalore.

The appeal preferred by the petitioner

before the appellate authority-1st respondent came to

be dismissed and order of the Caste Verification

Committee was upheld.

Aggrieved

by

the

said

orders,

the

petitioners are before this Court.

5.

Heard Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Jagadish, Special

Government Advocate for respondents.

- 6 -

6.

In addition to various grounds urged by

learned counsel in the petition, it is the contention of

the learned counsel that materials furnished by the

petitioner has not been considered while proceeding to

hold enquiry under Rule 3A (3) of the Karnataka

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other

Backward Community (Reservation of Appointments

Etc.,) Rules, 1992 and procedure as envisaged in the

said rules has not been followed before passing the

said order. It is prime contention of learned counsel

that all the members of the committee have not

signed the order at Annexure-S and it is only the

Chairman who has signed the order and would

contend that the Rule 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward

Community (Reservation of Appointments Etc.,) Rules,

1992

enumerates

that

the

Caste

Verification

Committee consisting of four members and all the

- 7 -

members need to sign the order. In view of this, it is

contended that the impugned orders passed by the

Deputy Commissioner and confirmed by the appellate

authority is not s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top