- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 102590 OF 2023 (GM-CC) BETWEEN: SMT. RUKHMINI W/O SANJAYA BAGADE AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD AND MEMBER MUNCIPALITY DANDELI GANDHINAGAR, DANDELI – 581 325 TAL: HALIYAL, UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.G.HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT KARWAR – 582 301. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KARWAR UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT – 581 301. 4. THE TAHASILDAR HALIYAL TALUK: HALIYAL – 581 329 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHASILDAR DANDELI TALUK DANDELI – 581 325 UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. 6. SRI RAJESH R.RUDRAPATI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O BAILPAR, DANDELI – 581 325 TALUK: HALIYAL UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.JAGADISH, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R1 TO R5; SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FR R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20-03-2023 IN AJSK/APL/01/2021-22 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER ANNEXURE-S AND ORDER DATED 11-01-2019 IN AJSK.VIVA.04/2018-19 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER ANNEXURE-N BY THE ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI, SUCH OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER AS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 20-03-2023, passed by the 2nd respondent affirming the order dated 11-01-2019, passed by 3rd - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 respondent, by which the caste certificate of the petitioner is cancelled. 2. Heard Sri R.G.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri C. Jagadish, learned Special Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner claiming to be belonging to Sillekyatar caste, a notified scheduled caste in the State of Karnataka, applies for issuance of a caste certificate depicting her to be belonging to the said caste before the 4th respondent - Tahsildar, Haliyal Taluk, Haliyal. The averment in the petition is, that the petitioner had produced all necessary documents in support of the claim for issuance of a caste certificate as Sillekyatar caste. The Tahsildar is said to have conducted an enquiry and after satisfying himself that the petitioner does belong to the said caste, issues a caste certificate in the year 2015. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 4. On 03-09-2018, the petitioner contests elections to the City Municipal Council, Dandeli, from Ward No.1 which was reserved for scheduled caste candidates. The petitioner gets elected and the 6th respondent who had contested against the petitioner gets defeated. The defeat of the 6th respondent leads him to file a complaint/appeal before the 3rd respondent – the Assistant Commissioner, Karwar, Uttara Kannada District, challenging the caste certificate so granted to the petitioner in the year 2015. The appeal is filed in the year 2018. The averment in the petition is, that the appeal was preferred after a delay of 3 years after issuance of the caste certificate, without any explanation. 5. The 3rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner seeking her appearance. The petitioner is said to have appeared before the 3rd respondent and again produced all the material to depict her to be belonging to Sillekyatar caste. It transpires that on verification of the documents that was submitted by the petitioner, which were the certificates issued in favour of the other members of the family of the petitioner, the Tahsildar, Ramdurg was requested - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 to submit a report on the said documents. Based upon the report of the Tahsildar, Ramdurg, the 3rd respondent, Assistant Commissioner cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of cancellation of caste certificate, the petitioner files W.P.No.104196/2019. 6. During the pendency of the said petition, the 6th respondent prefers a complaint against the petitioner before the District Caste Verification Committee, Uttara Kannada. The said Caste Verification Committee is said to have recommended/directed the 4th respondent to cancel the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, in terms of its order dated 05-9-2019. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the said Caste Verification Committee, files an appeal before the Commissioner, Social Welfare, as obtaining under 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 Commissioner, Social Welfare, allows the appeal, sets aside the order of the District Caste Verification Committee, in terms of its order dated 30-12-2019. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 7. In the interregnum, W.P.No.104196 of 2019 preferred by the petitioner against the order of the 3rd respondent canceling the caste certificate is disposed holding that the writ petition was not maintainable, owing to existence of an alternative remedy. The petitioner prefers an appeal against an order of the learned single judge in W.A.No.100062 of 2021. The appeal is disposed reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner then prefers a revision petition against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, dismisses the revision on the score that it is barred by limitation. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the said order of the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the revision on the ground of limitation. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the 3rd respondent - Assistant commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 4B of the Act, as it was preferred after a lapse of 3 years of issuance of the caste certificate. He would contend that the Deputy Commissioner as Chairman of the District Caste Verification - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 Committee had already passed an order directing the Tahsildar to cancel the caste certificate during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. This is reversed by the appellate Authority. Therefore, there is an order of the Assistant Commissioner which cancels the caste certificate entertaining the appeal beyond the period of limitation and another order restoring the caste certificate by the Commissioner, Social Welfare. The learned counsel would submit that the order of the Assistant Commissioner is contrary to Section 4B of the Act. He would contend that the Authorities have ignored the inspection and panchanama conducted by the Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant of Kulageri which depicts the petitioner to be belonging to Sillekyatar caste. It is the contention that the Deputy Commissioner erred in presuming that the petitioner belong to Killikyatar caste. He would, in all, contend that the Authorities have erred in cancelling the caste certificate and not entertaining the revision petition against the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 9. Per-contra, the learned Special Counsel Sri C Jagadish would submit that the order of the Assistant commissioner - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 cancelling the caste certificate is after noticing the law, as the petitioner admittedly has produced a false caste certificate as belonging to Sillekyatar. He would submit that all the caste certificates of the family members depict them to be belonging to Killikyatar caste. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 11. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The narration would require reiteration from the stage of the issuance of the caste certificate to the petitioner. The petitioner is issued a certificate on 24-01-2015 by the Tahsildar, Haliyal Taluk depicting her to be belonging to Sillekyatar caste, which is a declared scheduled caste. On the strength of the caste certificate, the petitioner contests elections to the City Municipal Council, Dandeli and emerges victorious. The defeated candidate files a complaint before the 3rd respondent, Assistant Commissioner on 15-09-2018. The petitioner appears before the Assistant Commissioner and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 produces documents. A report from Tahsildar, Ramdurg is called and based on the report, the caste certificate of the petitioner is cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of his order dated 11-01-2019. The order reads as follows: ““““ಆೇಶ ಆೇಶ ಆೇಶ ಆೇಶ ಕಾ ಟಕ ಅನುಸೂತ ಾ, ಅನುಸೂತ ಬುಡಕಟುಗಳ ಮತು ಇತರ ಂದು"ದ ವಗ ಗಳ ೇಮ$ಾ ಮುಂ%ಾದವ&ಗಳ «ÄøÀ'ಾ ಅ()ಯಮ 1990 +ಾಗೂ )ಯಮದ ಕಲಂ 4- ರ. ನನ/ೆ ಪ1ದತ2ಾದ ಅ($ಾರದಂ%ೆ ಎದುರುಾರರು-1ೇ ಯವರು ಅನುಸೂತ (ಪ45ೕಷ) "57ೆ8$ಾ9%ಾ:" ಾ/ೆ ;ೇ4ದವರು ಎಂಬ ಬ/ೆ< ;ಾ-ೕತು ಪ.ಸಲು =ಾವ&ೇ ಾಖ'ೆಗಳನು? ಸ@Aಸದ $ಾರಣ ಈ ಎದುರುಾರDಾದ 51ೕಮ ರುQäE $ೋಂ ಸಂಜಯ GಾಗHೆರವ4/ೆ Iತ4ಸ'ಾದ ಪ45ಷ ಾ(57ೆ8$ಾ9%ಾ:) ಪ1Jಾಣ ಪತ1 Kಾಂಕ:24-01-2015ರ ಸಂLೆ9 RD0038458032932 ೇದನು? +ಾಗೂ ಎದುರುಾರರು- 1 ರವರ ಮಗಳ ಕು. ಸುMಾ -N 51ೕ ಸಂಜಯ GಾಗHೆರವ4/ೆ Iತ4ಸ'ಾದ ಪ45ಷ ಾ “OೋI" ಪ1Jಾಣ ಪತ1 ಸಂLೆ9 RD0038458023011 ೇದನು? ರದುPಪ.Q ಆೇ5Qೆ. (ಈ ಆೇಶವನು? ಉಕ 'ೇಖನ )ೕ., ಗಣSೕಕರಣ/ೊ"Q ಪ45ೕ@Q. ಈ Kನ Kಾಂಕ: 11-01-2019 ರಂದು ಬರಂಗ ಾ9=ಾಲಯದ@A TೂೕUಸ'ಾVತು) ¸À»/- 11/01/2019 (ಅWXN -.) ಸ+ಾಯಕ ಕYೕಷನZ $ಾರ2ಾರ ಉಪIOಾಗ $ಾರ2ಾರ.” The Assistant Commissioner holds that the petitioner has not produced any document to demonstrate that she belongs to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 Sillekyatar caste. The order of cancellation is challenged before this Court in W.P.104196 of 2019. 12. During the pendency of the said petition, the 6th respondent knocks at the doors of the District Caste Verification Committee, Uttara Kannada District. The District Caste Verification Committee, by its order dated 05-09-2019 directs the 4th respondent, Tahsildar to cancel the caste certificate of the petitioner, by the following observations: “…. …. … 10. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order, 1956 4ೕ%ಾ9 ಕಾ ಟಕ ಪ. ಾ ಪ[ಯ@A F $ೆಳ\ನಂ%ೆ ಾಗಳನು? ಅ(ಸೂಸ'ಾ\ರುತೆ: 1. Throughout the State Except Coorg, Belgaum, Bijapur, Dharwar, Kanara, South Kanara, Gulbarga, Raichur and Bidar Districts and Kollegal Taluks of Mysore Districts:- 1 Adi Andhra 2 Adi Dravida 3 Adi Karnataka 4 Banjara or Lambani 5 Bhovi 6 Dakkaliga 7 Ganti Chor 8 Handi Jogis 9 Kepmaris 10 Koracha 11 Korama 12 Machala 13 Mochi 14 Sillekyathas 15 Sudugadu Siddha ಈ )[ನ@A ಪ45ೕ@ಸ'ಾ\, ಈ\ನ ಉತರಕನ?ಡ (ಂKನ $ೆನDಾ), Gಾಗಲ$ೋ^ೆ (ಂKನ -ಾಪ&ರ X'ೆAಯ Oಾಗ), Oಾಗದ@A ಎಂKಗೂ 57ೆ8$ಾ9%ಾ: ಪ.ಾ/ೆ ;ೇ4ರುವ&KಲA. ಈ Oಾಗಗಳನು? +ೊರತುಪ.Q, Dಾಜ9ದ - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 ಇತDೆ Oಾಗದ@A Jಾತ1 57ೆ8$ಾ9%ಾ: /ೆ ಪ.ಾ ;ಾ_ನJಾನ )ೕ.ರು%ಾDೆ. ಈ ಪ1ಕರಣದ@A, ಸದ4 ಪ12ಾK51ೕಮ ರುS`E ಸಂXೕವ GಾಗHೆ ರವರು ಉತರಕನ?ಡ X'ೆAಯ ಹ"=ಾಳ %ಾಲೂASನ@A 57ೆ8$ಾ9%ಾ: ಪ.ಾ ಪ1Jಾಣ ಪತ1 ಪHೆKರುವ&ದೂ ಸಹ . The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 gÀ°è F »AzÉ 1956 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è EzÀÝ ¥ÁæzÉòPÀ )ಭ ಂಧಗಳನು? %ೆ/ೆದು+ಾSzÀÝರ ಅವ$ಾಶವನು? ದುರುಪdೕಗಪ.Q$ೊಂಡ ಸದ4 51ೕಮ ರುS`E ಸಂXೕವ GಾಗHೆ ರವರು ಹ"=ಾಳ %ಾಲೂASನ@A ಸುಳ8 ಾಖ'ೆ Gಾಾ ಸೃUQ ಪ45ಷ ಾಯ 57ೆ8$ಾ9%ಾ: ಪ1Jಾಣ ಪತ1ವನು? $ಾನೂನುGಾರ2ಾ\ ಪHೆKರುವ&ದು fೕಲುೋಟ$ೆ` ಕಂಡುಬಂKರುತೆ. 11. The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 gÀ°è $ೇವಲ gಾ1ೇ5ಕ )ಭ ಂಧವನು? ಸ.@ಸ'ಾ\ರುತೆhೕ +ೊರತು =ಾವ&ೇ ಾಗಳನು? ;ೇಪ Hೆ Jಾ.ರುವ&KಲA. ಈ ನ?'ೆಯ@A, ಉತರಕನ?ಡ X'ೆAಯ@A ಮೂಲತಃ 57ೆ8ೕ$ಾ9%ಾ: ಜಾಂಗ ಇರುವ&KಲA. $ೇವಲ 1976 ರ )ಬ ಂಧ ಸ.@$ೆಯ ದು'ಾ ಭ ಪHೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಪ12ಾK=ಾದ 51ೕಮ ರುS`E ಸಂXೕವ GಾಗHೆ ರವರು ಸುಳ8 ಾಖ'ೆ ಸೃUQ ಅಕ1ಮ2ಾ\ ಪ45ಷ ಾ ಪ1Jಾಣ ಪತ1 ಪHೆKರುವ&ದು ಈ ಪ1ಕರಣದ@A ಸjಷ2ಾ\ರುತೆ. 12. ಪ45ಷ ಾಯ ಪ1Jಾಣ ಪತ1ಗಳನು? )ೕಡುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ Jಾನ9 ಸkೕ ಚm £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ Anjan Kumar V/s Union of India, Reported in AIR 2006 SC 1177 ಪ1ಕರಣದ@A ಈ $ೆಳ\ನಂ%ೆ ಆೇಶ +ೊರ.Qರುತೆ: "The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Certificate is not a bounty to be distributed. To sustain the claim, one must show that he/she suffered disabilities-Socially, Economically and Educationally cumulatively. The concerned authority before whom such claim is made, is duty bound to satisfy itself that the applicant suffered disabilities socially, economically and educationally before such certificate is issued. Any concerned authority issuing such certificates in a routine matter would be committing the dereliction of Constitution Duty" ಸದ4 fೕ@ನ ಆೇಶೊಂK/ೆ ಪ1ಸುತ ಪ1ಕರಣವನು? ಪ45ೕ@ಸ'ಾ\, ಸದ4 ಪ12ಾK=ಾದ 51ೕಮ ರುQäE ಸಂXೕವ GಾಗHೆ ರವರು %ಾವ& 57ೆ8$ಾ9%ಾ: ಜಾಂಗ$ೆ` ;ೇ4ರುವ ಬ/ೆ< ಪnರಕ ಾಖ'ೆ +ಾಗೂ ಸjUಕರಣವನು? )ೕಡುವ&ದರ@A - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 ಸಂಪnಣ IಫಲDಾ\ರು%ಾDೆ. ಮ%ೊಂೆHೆ, ದೂರುಾರರು ಪ12ಾKಯು 57ೆ8$ಾ9%ಾ: ಜಾಂಗ$ೆ` ;ೇರೇ ಇರುವ ಬ/ೆ< ಎ'ಾA ಪnರಕ ಾಖ'ೆಗಳನು? ಸY/ೆ ಸ@AQರು%ಾDೆ. ಈ ಎ'ಾA ಅಂಶಗಳ ನ?'ೆಯ@A, ಪ12ಾK=ಾದ 51ೕಮ ರುQäE ಸಂXೕವ GಾಗHೆ ರವರು ಂದು"ದ ವಗ ಗಳ ಪ1ವಗ -1 ರ S7ೆ8$ಾ9ತ ಜಾಂಗ$ೆ` ;ೇ4ರುವ ಅಂಶವನು? ಸYಯು ಸ2ಾ ನುಮತKಂದ ಅಂ\ೕಕ4Qರುತೆ +ಾಗೂ ಸದ4 51ೕಮ ರುQäE ಸಂXೕವ GಾಗHೆ ರವರು ಸುಳ8 ಾಖ'ೆ ಸೃUQ ಹ"=ಾಳ ತಹQೕ'ಾPZ ರವ4ಂದ Kಾಂಕ: 24.01.2015 ರಂದು ಸಂLೆ9: ಆZ...0038458032932 4ೕ%ಾ9 ಪHೆKರುವ ಸುಳ8 ಪ45ಷ ಾ 57ೆ8$ಾ9%ಾ: ಪ1Jಾಣಪತ1ವನು? ರದುPJಾಡಲು ಸYಯು ಸ2ಾ ನುಮತKಂದ ೕJಾ )Qರುವ&ದ4ಂದ ಈ $ೆಳ\ನಂ%ೆ ಆೇಶ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÉ: DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:G¤¸ÀPÀE/PÁ/¸ÀļÀÄî eÁw/¹Dgï-131/2018-19/561(6) ¢£ÁAPÀ:05.09.2019 51ೕಮ ರುQäE ಸಂXೕವ GಾಗHೆ, -N ಫSೕರಪj, $ೋಂ ಸಂXೕವ GಾಗHೆ. /ಾಂ(ನಗರ, ಾಂHೇ@ %ಾಲೂAಕು-581325, ಉತರಕನ?ಡ X'ೆA ರವರು ಸುಳ8 ಾಖ'ೆ ಸೃUQ ತಹQೕ'ಾPZ, ಹ"=ಾಳ gÀªÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:24.01.2015 ರ@A ಸಂLೆ9: Dgï.r.0038458032932 4ೕ%ಾ9 ಪHೆದ ಸುಳ8 ಪ45ಷ ಾ 57ೆ8$ಾ9%ಾ: ಪ1Jಾಣಪತ1ವನು? ತpqಣKಂದ ಾ4/ೆ ಬರುವಂ%ೆ ರದುPJಾಡಲು X'ಾA ಾ ಪ45ೕಲಾ ಸYಯು ಆೇ5Qೆ. ಈ ಕೂಡ'ೇ, ತಹQೕ'ಾPZ. ಹ"=ಾಳ %ಾಲುAಕು ರವರು 51ೕಮ ರುS`E ಸಂXೕವ GಾಗHೆ ರವರ ಾ ಪ1Jಾಣ ಪತ1 ಸಂLೆ9: ಆZ...0038458032932 ಅನು? ರದುP/ೊ"Q ಆೇಶ +ೊರ.ಸುವಂ%ೆ X'ಾA ಾ ಪ45ೕಲಾ ಸYಯು ಸೂQೆ. ¸À»/- ¸À»/- ತಹQೕ'ಾPZ, ಹ"=ಾಳ %ಾಲೂAಕು ಉಪ$ಾಯ ದ5 , X'ಾA ಪಂrಾಯp +ಾಗೂ ಸದಸ9ರು, X'ಾA ಾ ಪ45ೕಲಾ ಸY, +ಾಗೂ ಸದಸ9ರು, X'ಾA ಾ ಪ45ೕಲಾ ಸY, ಉತರಕನ?ಡ X'ೆA, $ಾರ2ಾರ ಉತರಕನ?ಡ X'ೆA, $ಾರ2ಾರ ¸À»/- ¸À»/- ಉಪ)ೇ ಶಕರು, ಸJಾಜ ಕ'ಾ9ಣ ಇ'ಾLೆ X'ಾA($ಾ4, ಉತರಕಾಡ X'ೆA +ಾಗೂ ಸದಸ9 $ಾಯ ದ5 , ºÁUÀÆ CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, X'ಾA ಾ ಪ45ೕಲಾ ಸY X'ಾA ಾ ಪ45ೕಲಾ ಸY ಉತರಕನ?ಡ X'ೆA, $ಾರ2ಾರ. ಉತರಕನ?ಡ X'ೆA, $ಾರ2ಾರ.” The petitioner challenges the said order of District Caste Verification Committee before the Appellate Authority under - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 Section 4D of the Act. The Appellate Authority sets aside the order of the District Caste Verification Committee by the following order: “…. …. …. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Undisputedly the respondent no. 2 herein has preferred an appeal u/s. 4-B of the Karnataka SC/ST & Other Backward Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990. The Assistant Commissioner has annulled the caste certificate obtained by the appellant herein. Against the said order, the appellant has preferred Writ Petition before the Hon'ble high Court of Karnataka and the matter is pending consideration. When such being the fact, on the same issue, the respondent no. 2 herein ought to have contested the matter before the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 104196/2019. Further, he has also maintained parallel proceedings before the respondent no. 1. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the respondent no.1 is unsustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.9.2019 passed by the respondent No.1 produce at Annexure C is set aside. In view of the order passed by this Authority, it will not come in the way of respondent no. 2 to persuade his grievances in the writ petition pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. This order is pronounced in the open Court on the 30th day of December, 2019. Sd/- 30.12.19 (R.S. Peddappaiah, I.A.S) COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT” - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 Thus, the caste certificate stood restored by the order of the Appellate Authority. In the interregnum, on the submission made by the learned Special Counsel for the respondents Sri C Jagadish, the learned single Judge disposed W.P.No.104196 of 2019 by the following order: “…. …. … 3. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7, Sri. C. Jagadish, submits that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy under Section 4-F of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. 4. Section 4-F of the Act reads as under: "4-F. Revision by Deputy Commissioner.- (1) The Deputy Commissioner may at any time either suomoto or on an application made to him within the prescribed period, call for and examine the records relating to any decision made or order passed by the Tahasildar under section 4A or the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4B, for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the legality, propriety of such decision or order and if, in any case, it appears to the Deputy Commissioner that any such decision or order shall be modified, annulled, revised or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders within thirty days accordingly; Provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall not pass any order prejudicial to any person unless such person is given an opportunity of being heard. (2) The Deputy Commissioner may, stay the execution of any such decision or order pending the exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof." 5. From the perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is very clear that the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy before the Deputy Commissioner and when an alternative remedy is available under a statute, - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order by filing revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner as provided under Section 4-F of the Act. 7. If the petitioner prefers revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner within a period of four weeks from today, the Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider the same on merits after hearing all the parties. 8. The contentions of all the parties are left open.” The learned single Judge directs the petitioner to file a revision under Section 4F of the Act. This is challenged by the petitioner before the Division Bench in W.A.No.100062 of 2021. The Division Bench disposed the appeal by the following order: “….. …. ….. 8. It is alleged by the appellant that she belongs to ‘Sillekyather’ caste by birth and thereby, she falls under Scheduled Caste. The jurisdictional authority has issued a certificate to the said effect. The said certificate was challenged by the 8th respondent by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal and set aside the certificate issued in favour of the appellant. If any person is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahasildar under Section 4-A or the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4-B of the Act, he has the remedy of filing a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4- F of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellant to approach the Deputy Commissioner which is in accordance with law. The appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in this intra court appeal. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 9. It is also relevant to state at this stage that as the period of four weeks stipulated by the learned Single Judge, delegating the appellant to file a revision before the Deputy Commissioner has expired during the pendency of the present intra court appeal, therefore in the interest of justice the appellant has to be given reasonable time of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, to file a revision before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4-F of the Act. 10. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present appeal has to be answered in the affirmative holding that the learned Single Judge is justified in delegating the appellant to file a revision petition and appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. 11. In view of the above, we pass the following: ORDER i) The writ appeal is disposed off, ii) The appellant/petitioner is directed to file a revision before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4-F of the Act, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, iii) The Deputy Commissioner shall after issuing notice to respondent No.8 (notice sent to respondent No.8 is returned with postal shara ‘unclaimed’ in the present appeal) and thereafter consider the revision after giving an opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law.” The Division Bench permitted the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4F of the Act holding that - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 the learned single Judge has rightly directed so. Petitioner was granted 6 weeks time to approach the Revisional Authority. The petitioner prefers a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner. On the revision filed, the Deputy Commissioner passes the following order: “…. …. …. The findings of the Caste verification Committee Uttara Kannada district further reveals that in the year 2013 when the revision petitioner contested for the local body election she sworn to the affidavit that she studied upto 7 std. Subsequently in the year 2018 when she had contested the local body election in her affidavit she has stated that her education qualification nil. Thus, the revision petitioner gave false information to the Election Commissioner by way of affidavit. In the SC ST list (modification) order 1996 it is stated as under: Throughout the state except Coorg, Belgaon, Bijapur, Dharwad, Kanara, South Canara, Gulbarga, Raichur and Bidar districts and colegal taluks of Mysore district. The aforesaid order is clear that the present Uttara Kannada district formally known as Kanara earlier Bijapur district now Bagalkot Sillekyathas caste does not belong to Scheduled Caste. The revision petitioner has obtained the scheduled caste certificate at Haliyal at Uttara Kannada district by showing her caste as Sillekyathas 1 Adi Andhra 2 Adi Dravida 3 Adi Karnataka 4 Banjara or Lambani 5 Bhovi 6 Dakkaliga 7 Ganti Chor 8 Handi Jogis 9 Kepmaris 10 Koracha 11 Korama 12 Machala 13 Mochi 14 Sillekyathas 15 Sudugadu Siddha - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 which belongs to SC which is against the above said order of Government of Karnataka The Hon'ble Apex Court in Anjan Kumar V/s Union of India, Reported in AIR 2006 SC 1177 has held as under: "The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe certificate in not a bounty to be distributed. To sustain the claim, one must show that he/she suffered disabilities-socially, economically and educationally cumulatively. The concerned authority before whom such claim is made, is duty bound to satisfy itself that the applicant suffered disabilities-socially, economically and educationally before such certificate is issued. Any concerned authority issuing such certificates in a routine manner would be committing the dereliction of Constitutional duty". In the light of the above said decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, in the instant case the material placed before this Court is crystal clear that the revision petitioner by suppressing the material facts obtained a false caste certificate by furnishing the fabricated documents even though she does not belong to SC caste. The Assistant Commissioner Karwar in detail has discussed the rival contention raised by the present revision petitioner and respondent No. 4 and gave a finding. No interference by this Court is required in the findings of the Assistant Commissioner, Karwar. Hence, I answer the aforesaid point in the negative and proceed to pass the following Order The revision petition filed by the petitioner U/s 4(F) of the Karnataka SC, ST and Other BC (Reservation of Appointments Etc.) Act, 1990 is dismissed confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner Karwar in No. AJSK/Viva/04/2018-19 dated 11-01-2019. No order as to costs.” The Deputy Commissioner dismisses the revision petition confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 cancelling the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. 13. The issue now would be, whether the Assistant Commissioner who had cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner had jurisdiction to entertain the complainant or otherwise, as today there are 2 orders, one in favour of the petitioner, by the Appellate Authority and one against the petitioner, by the Revisional Authority. The genesis of the proceeding of the Revisional Authority, is on the basis of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 11-01-2019. The order is passed under Section 4B of the Act. Section 4B of the Act reads as follows: “4-B. Appeal against order under Section 4-A.—(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Tahasildar under Section 4-A may, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order prefer an appeal to Assistant Commissioner of the revenue sub-division. (2) The Assistant Commissioner of the revenue sub-division may after giving both parties an opportunity of being heard pass orders allowing or dismissing the appeal and in appropriate cases directing issue of a caste certificate or as the case may be, an income and caste certificate to the applicant.” Section 4B permits an appeal against an order under Section 4A. Section 4A deals with issuance of caste certificate by the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 Tahsildar. Section 4B mandates that any person aggrieved by an order of the Tahsildar under Section 4A, may within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner. 14. What is challenged before the Assistant Commissioner is a caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar under Section 4A. The caste certificate is admittedly issued on 24-1-2015. The appeal is admittedly preferred in the year 2018. The Assistant Commissioner has not gone into the issue of delay and has cancelled the caste certificate without looking into plethora of documents produced by the petitioner. The Revisional Authority – Deputy Commissioner also confirms the order of the Assistant Commissioner ignoring the fact of maintainability of the complaint/appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. 15. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it would be appropriate for the Assistant Commissioner to consider the complaint afresh, filed by the 6th respondent before him, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. The Assistant Commissioner shall also take into - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 consideration the order of the Appellate Authority passed under Section 4D of the Act, consider all the documents produced by the petitioner viz., the panchanama, report of the Revenue Inspector and the Village Accountant and pass necessary orders, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order of the Assistant commissioner dated 11-01-2019 and the order of the Revisional Authority/Deputy Commissioner dated 20-03-2023 stand quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the 3rd respondent/Assistant Commissioner to consider the complaint afresh, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1118 WP No. 102590 of 2023 (iv) While so doing, reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the parties to the lis. (v) It would be open to the Assistant Commissioner to solicit any information/document from the hands of the petitioner. (vi) The legal remedy available to the petitioner in the aftermath of the proceedings/order of the Assistant Commissioner shall remain open. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77 CT:SS