- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31287 WP No. 53388 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 53388 OF 2017 (GM-CC) BETWEEN: MR. MUJAHID KHAN S/O. SRI. SATTAR KHAN R/AT NO.3, 4TH MAIN, 2ND FLOOR, DAWARI MANZIL, NEW GURUVAPPAN PALYA, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V. VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31287 WP No. 53388 of 2017 4. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT NO.1, TECHNICAL BOARD BUILDING, TECHNICAL EDUCATION BHAVANA, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT CELL, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009. 6. THE COMMISSIONER BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, NO.16/D, 3RD FLOOR, D DEVARAJA URS BHAVAN, MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. 7. DR. DHAVALAVAR AMBAPPA MALLAPPA S/O LATE MALLAPPA R/AT C/O PROF. M.V. GANACHARI, KALYAN NAGAR SINDGI - 586 128 BIJAPUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., ADVOCATE HCGP FOR R1 TO R6 SRI. VARUN NAIR VIVEK, FOR SMT. UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATES FOR R7) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2017 PASSED BY R-6 WHEREIN THE SAID AUTHORITY HAS ANNULLED THE CASTE CERTIFICATE RELATING TO THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31287 WP No. 53388 of 2017 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.6 in case No.HVKN/MASHA/CR46/2015-16, whereby the caste certificate issued to him was annulled. 2. (i) The petitioner claims that he belongs to Durvesh community, which is a sect amongst Muslims. The Special Tahasildar Bangalore South Taluk had issued a caste certificate dated 06.01.2004 mentioning that the petitioner belongs to the Durvesh sect, which is a backward class in category-I. The petitioner claims that the Special Tahasildar had also issued a certificate in form Annexure – A, certifying that the petitioner belongs to the Durvesh sect amongst Muslims after conducting due enquiry and in view of the law laid down in the case of Smt.RafiyaShabeen vs. State of Karnataka [AIR 1994 KANT 295]. (ii) The petitioner contends that he completed a master graduate in history and sought appointment to the post of lecturer in the said subject. After due process, he was appointed as a lecturer by the Karnataka Public Service - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31287 WP No. 53388 of 2017 Commission (for short 'KPSC'), Bangalore, vide notification dated 19.02.2009. Thereafter, an order was issued by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education on 02.09.2009, posting him as a lecturer at Government First Grade College, Belathangadi. (iii) When things stood thus, the respondent No.7 challenged the appointment of the petitioner and three others before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in application No.3449/2009, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed Miscellaneous Application No.72/2011, which was also dismissed on 13.10.2011. The said order was challenged before this Court in WP No.1393/2012, which was also dismissed on merits. The respondent No.7 then filed Review Petition No.906/2012, where this Court directed the respondent No.1 to consider the claim of the respondent No.7 on merits. The respondent No.7 then questioned the order in writ appeal, which was dismissed and SLP No.10044/2014 was also dismissed, vide order dated 17.07.2014. 3. The respondent No.7 filed another writ petition No.16057/2015, which was disposed of in terms of an order - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31287 WP No. 53388 of 2017 dated 27.08.2015 directing the respondent No.4 to look into the question of whether the petitioner belongs to Durvesh sect amongst Muslims. The respondent No.7 again filed another writ petition No.40216/2016, which was disposed of on 21.01.2017, directing the respondent No.6 herein to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate order. It is claimed that respondent No.6 after holding a formal enquiry passed the impugned order annulling the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore before this Court, challenging the said order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent No.6 did not apply his mind before passing the impugned order. He submits that the impugned order does not contain any reason of whatsoever nature to annul the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. He contends that the certificate issued to the petitioner has conferred certain rights on him and therefore the respondent No.6 was bound in law to apply his mind before annulling the caste certificate, as this would result in serious civil consequences. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31287 WP No. 53388 of 2017 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent Nos.1 to 6, after perusing the impugned order submitted that there were materials before the respondent No.6 to doubt the correctness of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner and therefore the respondent No.6 after perusing the material had passed the impugned order. He therefore submits that there is no error committed by the respondent No.6 in passing the impugned order. 6. (i) The learned counsel for the respondent No.7 who filed a counter to the writ petition submitted inter alia that the respondent No.6 held a detailed enquiry whereat the petitioner and his father and mother were examined. He contended that the sister of the petitioner was admitted to Sudarshana Vidya Mandir and in the column prescribed for mentioning the caste and religion, it was mentioned as Islam, Sunni Muslim. Even while obtaining the of transfer certificate, it was mentioned as Indian Islam Muslim. (ii) In so far as petitioner is concerned, when he obtained his transfer certificate, in the column prescribed for mentioning the caste and religion, it was mentioned as Muslim. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31287 WP No. 53388 of 2017 While in the registers maintained in the school, it was mentioned as Indian Islam Muslim. He contended that the headmaster of the Bangalore Jayanagara High School had stated that in the application filed for admission of the petitioner to school, it was mentioned as Indian Muslim and the word Muslim was struck off and mentioned as Islam. (iii) In the Christ College when the petitioner was admitted, his religion was mentioned as Muslim in the relevant column. According to the Principal of the Christ College, in the relevant column the petitioner has declared his religion as Muslim and in the sub-caste it was mentioned as Muslim Sunni. He contends that the petitioner and his father had affixed their signatures on the application and therefore they were estopped from contending to the contrary. (iv) He contends that the petitioner was selected for a post-graduate course, in category-IIB and his religion was declared as Muslim. He also obtained a caste certificate from the Tahasildar, stating that he belongs to category–IIB, namely Muslim. Similarly, when he was admitted to M.Phil., he claimed that he belonged to category–I. He contends that the petitioner’s sister Smt.Sameena Begam claimed that she - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31287 WP No. 53388 of 2017 belonged to Islam Sunni Muslim and another sister Smt.Nagina Begam claimed that she belonged to Islam Sunni. 7. The respondent No.7 therefore contends that the respondent No.6 has considered this material and has come to the conclusion that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is liable to be annulled. He contends that as per the caste list published in the government order No.SWD.225.BCA.2000 dated 30.03.2002, it does not include Durvesh as belonging to category – I and therefore the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled and respondent No.6 was justified in doing so. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. 9. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent No.6 adverted to the contentions urged by the respondent No.7 in the petition before him. He did not refer to the evidence of the parties adduced before him. He did not refer to the contentions urged by the petitioner and the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31287 WP No. 53388 of 2017 respondent No.7. He also did not advert to the material produced by the petitioner to justify that he belongs to Durvesh which is a sect amongst Muslims. The respondent No.6 after referring to the contentions urged in the proceedings before him, decided by a cryptic order that the caste certificate issued to the petitioner has to be annulled and accordingly, passed the impugned order. When an order is passed by an administrative authority, reasons have to be set out not as a formality but to ensure that there is proper application of mind and when challenged before higher authority, it should be in a position to analyze the decision to check whether the reasons justifying the order are just and proper. In matters of this nature, it is not subjective satisfaction of the respondent No.6 but an objective consideration of the material placed before him before arriving at a decision that matters. Since the impugned order is cryptic in nature and does not set out reasons, the same deserves to be set at naught on their short ground alone. 10. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed- in-part. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31287 WP No. 53388 of 2017 11. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.6 is quashed. The respondent No.6 is directed to reconsider the same and pass appropriate orders. 12. It is made clear that the respondent No.6 shall pass a speaking order indicating the basis for arriving at the decision. In order to expedite the process, the petitioner and the respondent No.7 are directed to appear before the respondent No.6 on 30.08.2025 at 3.00 p.m. The respondent No.6 shall hear the petitioner as well as the respondent No.7 and pass a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of conclusion of the submissions. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4