Heard.

This Review Petition is filed seeking review of the

judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.200065/2022(GM-CC)

dated 13.01.2023. By the said order, the order of the Single

Judge dated 25.02.2022 in W.P.No.200002/2020(GM-CC) was

reversed and the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed

with costs of Rs.1,00,000/-.

In para 37 of this review petition, the petitioner has

claimed that he has not preferred any other petition or appeal

challenging the order sought to be reviewed. However, the

order of the Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to

Appeal (C) No(s).4672/2023 dated 20.03.2023 which was

communicated to this Court shows that the petitioner had

challenged the order sought to be reviewed. The said order

further shows that after arguing the matter for sometime, the

petitioner’s Counsel sought withdrawal of the special leave

petition with liberty to contest the impugned show cause

notice. That order further shows that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court disposed of the said petition as withdrawn with a

- 4 -

direction that the impugned show cause notice shall be decided

by the concerned authority on its own merits in accordance

with law. The said order indicates that the petitioner was

directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner.

Sri Jagadish, learned Special Counsel submits that

the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 03.05.2023 cancelled

the caste certificate of the petitioner, the petitioner has

challenged that order before this Court in Writ Petition

No.201181/2023 and that matter is still pending. This matter

was listed on 07.07.2023 after such filing of the Writ Petition.

Those facts were not divulged even on that day.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

non-disclosure of the proceeding before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court is his bonafide mistake, but, the same was divulged in

the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1/2023 for condonation of

delay, therefore, no malafide can be imputed to him for

disclosing the same in the petition. Para No.2 of the said

application shows that even there he had only mentioned about

withdrawal of the petition and the copy of the same was not

produced.

- 5 -

The facts that the Special Leave Petition was

withdrawn after arguing for sometime and directing the

petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, were not

disclosed in the said application. Therefore, the submission of

the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the statement in

para 37 of the petition is bonafide mistake, deserves no merit.

It is submitted that in W.P.No.201181/2023 the learned Single

Judge has rejected the prayer for interim stay of order of

Deputy Commissioner.

As reported, cost of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by the

order sought to be reviewed is not paid. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court disposed of the matter with a direction to the petitioner

to appear before the Deputy Commissioner and directing the

Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter on merits.

Considering the same, entertaining the review petition amounts

to meddling with the said order. By this petition, the petitioner

has tried to overreach the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

proceedings in W.P.No.201181/2023 and interim order passed

in that case. The review petition is not only untenable, but also

smacks of malafides. Considering the conduct of the petitioner,

- 6 -

the petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

Review Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-

payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

Registry shall communicate this order as well as the order

in Writ Appeal No.200065/2022 i.e., the order sought to be

reviewed to the Member Secretary of the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority for recovery of the costs imposed.

If the petitioner fails to deposit the costs, the Karnataka

State Legal Services Authority shall recover the costs as arrears

of land revenue.

Pending IAs stood disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PKN