- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5915 OF 2016 (GM-CC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LEENA BOBBI D/O SRI. RUDRAYYA BOBBI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 2. SRI. NAGARAJ BOBBI S/O SRI. RUDRAYYA BOBBI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. SRI. SHAMBULINGAYYA BOBBI S/O SRI RUDRAYYA BOBBI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.43, 5TH CROSS, 1ST 'N' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BEHIND VIDYA VARDHAKA SCHOOL, BANGALORE-560 010. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SATISH M. DODDAMANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, DHARWAD DISTRICT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580 008 4. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI-580 023 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.01.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-O PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT IN APPEAL CR NO.14-14B/2014-15 CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order dated 18.01.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal CR No.14-14B/2014-15 confirming the order passed by the respondent No.3. They have also challenged the order bearing No.¸ÀA.f¸ÀPÀ/J¸ï.1/eÁ¥À/¹Dgï:5/2014-15 dated 06.02.2015 passed by the respondent No.3. They have also challenged the official memorandum bearing No. PÀæ/eÁw¥Àæ/¹Dgï/681 14-15 dated 13.02.2015 passed by respondent No.4. Likewise, they have challenged the official memorandum dated 13.02.2015 bearing No.PÀæ/eÁw¥Àæ/¹Dgï/814 14-15 issued by the respondent No.4 and the official memorandum dated 13.02.2015 bearing No.PÀæ/eÁw¥Àæ/¹Dgï/680 14-15 issued by the respondent No.4. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of prohibition to restrain the respondents from holding fresh enquiry against the petitioners regarding the verification of their caste. 2. (i) The petitioners claim that they are the children of Sri.Rudrayya Bobbi, who belongs to Beda Jangama, which is a Scheduled Caste. The petitioners had obtained a caste - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 certificate in Form-1 that they belong to Scheduled Caste pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court in different writ petitions. The petitioners furnished the caste certificates before the competent authority in the year 1993 and secured seats for prosecuting their studies in M.B.B.S., M.Sc., and MCA respectively and completed their courses. They claimed that they did not avail any other facility except seeking admission for the above said courses. They also did not secure any employment based on their caste. They claimed that when the petitioner No.1 was studying M.B.B.S., she was asked to produce the validity certificate and directed the respondent No.2 to ascertain the truth of the caste certificate furnished by her and issue a validity certificate. The District Social Welfare Officer, who is the Secretary of the respondent No.3, rejected her request for a validity certificate by issuing an endorsement dated 12.09.1994. (ii) The petitioner No.1 then approached the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 7(2) of the Karnataka Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.,) (Amendment) Rules, 1992 (henceforth - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 referred to as ‘Rules, 1992’ for short). The Divisional Commissioner after conducting an enquiry, set aside the endorsement dated 12.09.1994 and asked the respondent No.3 to conduct a de-novo enquiry in terms of an order dated 06.10.1994. Pursuant to the order of the Divisional Commissioner, the CRE cell and the Inspector from the Social Welfare Department conducted a detailed enquiry and drew up a panchnama after recording the statements of the witnesses. It concluded that though the petitioner belonged to Lingayat community, people addressed them as Jangama. 3. (i) The petitioners claimed that Rule 9-A was introduced into the Rules, 1992, whereby the power of validating a caste certificate for persons belonging to Scheduled Caste was conferred on the State Level Verification Committee. The petitioners noticing such discriminatory treatment, approached this Court in WP No.22676/1997 and WP No.22716-20/1997 challenging the vires of Rule 9-A of the Rules, 1992. During the pendency of the writ petitions the respondent No.1 deleted Rule 9-A of the Rules, 1992, on 08.02.2000. Therefore, this Court allowed the writ petitions and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 directed the petitioners herein to approach the Tahsildar of the area and obtain appropriate caste and validity certificate and produce the same before the appropriate authorities. (ii) The petitioners then applied to the Tahsildar and District Caste Verification Committee for issuance of caste certificate and income validity certificate within six months from the date of the order passed in WP No.22676/1997. Though they made a request, no action was taken on such request. Instead, the respondent No.3 dropped the proceedings as against the petitioner No.1. The petitioners submit that the District Social Welfare Officer, who is the secretary of the committee intimated to the petitioner No.1 that the enquiry regarding verification of her caste was dropped. He further intimated to the petitioners that there is no necessity of issuing a validity certificate for the purpose of procuring financial assistance and for obtaining employment. It was also clarified that the petitioner No.2 had not secured any public employment by using the caste certificate. The respondent No.3 had also intimated this Court vide letter dated 12.11.2002, a copy of which was marked to the petitioner No.1. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 4. The petitioner No.1 while pursuing her studies, had requested for scholarship from the Social Welfare Department and the Social Welfare Officer after considering her request had granted scholarship on 20.07.2004, as per the circulars dated 23.03.2002 and 06.08.2002. In the meanwhile, several persons similarly placed as the petitioners questioned the action of the respondents requiring them to produce the validity certificate, in respect of the certificates obtained prior to 11.11.1993. This Court allowed the claim of such persons in terms of an order dated 30.08.2001 in WP No.36702-36718/2000, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.7536/2001 connected with W.A.No.7546-61/2001. The petitioners contend that after noticing the law declared by this Court, circulars dated 04.03.2005 and 30.06.2007 were issued directing the authorities not to insist upon persons who had secured caste certificates prior to 11.11.1993 to produce the validity certificates. 5. The petitioners contend that ignoring the above, the District Social Welfare Officer being the Secretary of the respondent No.3 issued a letter calling upon the petitioners to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 appear before the committee on 19.09.2014. The petitioners appeared before the committee and gave their explanation contending that the caste verification insofar as the petitioner No.1 was dropped on 07.10.2002 and hence the enquiry was not warranted. The committee ignored the contentions of the petitioners and passed an order declaring that the certificates obtained by the petitioners are invalid and asked the concerned to initiate prosecution for procuring false certificates and to take steps to recover such financial benefits obtained by the petitioners as provided under Section 7(B) of the Rules, 1992. Based on the order dated 06.02.2015, the Tahsildar who issued the caste certificate directed the petitioners to surrender the caste certificate within seven days. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners approached this Court in WP No.8341-43/2015 and this Court disposed off the writ petition, directing the petitioners to file an appeal before respondent No.2. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.2 under Section 4(D) of the Karnataka Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.,) Act, 2004 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 2004’ for short). The respondent No.2 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 did not consider the application for interim stay, which compelled the petitioners to again approach this Court in WP No. 11840-11842/2015. This Court directed the respondent No.2 to dispose off the application for interim stay, if the respondent No.2 found it difficult to dispose off the appeal immediately. The petitioners claim that despite the above, respondent No.2 did not consider the application, which compelled the petitioners to file a contempt petition before this Court. It was only after the notice in the contempt petition was issued that the Commissioner of respondent No.2 fixed a date and passed an order dated 18.01.2016 rejecting the appeal. The petitioners claimed that the order passed by the respondent No.2 was without providing sufficient opportunity and without considering the contentions urged by them and without examining all the documents produced with the appeal memo. 6. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.2 had relied upon facts mentioned in the book authored by Sri.K.S.Singh, where it was mentioned that the people belonging to Beda Jangama are strictly vegetarians. Contrarily, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 the Commissioner of the respondent No.2 stated in the impugned order that people belonging to Beda Jangama are non-vegetarians and consumed liquor by referring to the book authored by Sri.K.S.Singh. They contend that there is no material titled as “Re-study of People of India, Volume II” that was relied upon by respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order. The petitioners therefore sought information from the Social Welfare Department regarding the material available with them concerning the way of life of people belonging to Beda Jangama. The Social Welfare Department furnished information regarding the ethnic background of Beda Jangama, which was chronicled by the Editor-in-Chief of the Karnataka Gazetteer, which showed that Beda Jangamas were vegetarians. The petitioners therefore contend that the impugned order is passed without application of mind. 7. Aggrieved by the order passed to the Commissioner dated 18.01.2016, the petitioners have approached this Court by this writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondent No.2 failed to notice that the proceedings - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 initiated by the authorities regarding verification of the caste was already dropped and the same was intimated to this Court. Therefore, the issue could not have been reopened, as the authorities had no power or authority to reopen the case, which was already concluded. He further contends that the impugned order is liable to be quashed as the respondent No.2 failed to appreciate that the order dated 06.02.2015 passed by the District Caste Verification Committee was without hearing the petitioners and without giving them an opportunity of being heard. He contends that the Commissioner without even calling for records from the District Caste Verification Committee had passed the impugned order. 9. He contends that when the issue was pending before the respondent No.3, an enquiry was conducted by the CRE Cell and Social Welfare Officer, who submitted their report that the petitioners and their ancestors were Beda Jangama. However, the respondent No.3 without examining the said report and without providing any opportunity had hurriedly passed the order, which was confirmed by the respondent No.2 in terms of the impugned order. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 10. He further contends that when the father of the petitioners had obtained the caste certificate, he had filed an affidavit before the Tahsildar, Hubli, contending that he belongs to Beda Jangama. He contends that the Tahsildar after considering the order dated 22.07.1993 passed by this Court, issued the caste certificate. Therefore, he contends that there is no suppression of material fact. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is without considering the factual facts of the case and therefore, submits that the same is liable to be quashed. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that though the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3 was earlier dropped, that did not in any way come in the way of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 going into the correctness of the case certificate granted to the petitioners. He therefore contends that the impugned orders are just and proper. Besides this, he contends that the petitioners are trying to grab the opportunity that is reserved for persons belonging to Scheduled Caste by claiming that they belong to Beda Jangama. He submits that the petitioners are - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 not Beda Jangama, but are Lingayat and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are just and proper. He submits that the caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners are fraudulent and hence, the respondent No.2 was right in setting aside the caste certificate granted to the petitioners. 12. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 13. The petitioner No.1 and her father had filed WP No.22676/1997 and WP No.22716-20/1997 to declare Rule 9-A of the Karnataka Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.,) (Amendment) Rules, 1992, as unconstitutional. They has also challenged the order of the committee rejecting their claim that Beda Jangama was not a Scheduled Caste. For the sake of convenience Rule 9-A is extracted below: "9-A. Scrutinising Committee:.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 4 to 7, the State Government shall constitute a State Level - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 Scrutinising Committee consisting of the following namely.- (a) an Officer not below the rank of Chairman Additional Secretary to Government appointed by the State Government (b) Director of Social Welfare Member (c) An Officer not below the rank of Deputy Member Director of Social Welfare who has intimate knowledge of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, appointed by the State Government (2) The Scrutinising Committee shall verify the caste status of the Beda Jangama, Budga Jangama and Mala Jangama etc. The members belonging to the above castes may file application for caste verification certificate before the said Scrutinising Committee. Rule 6 shall mutatis mutandis apply for filing application before the State Level Scrutinising Committee. The Committee shall make such enquiry as it deems fit, if necessary by getting it verified by the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, and pass orders as it deems fit. (3) All applications pertaining to verification of castes of Beda Jangama, Budga Jangama and Mala Jangama and pending at the level of District Level Committee or in appeal before the Divisional - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 Commissioner shall stand transferred to the Scrutinising Committee and the Scrutinizing Committee shall hold enquiry afresh as if they were filed before it and pass such orders as it deems fit. (4) The orders of the Scrutinising Committee shall be final.” 14. During the pendency of the writ petitions, Rule 9-A was deleted. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court remitted the case back to the committee for fresh disposal in view of the deletion of Rule 9-A of the Rules, 1992 and set aside the order passed by the State Level Caste Verification Committee and directed the petitioners to approach the Tahsildar of the area and obtain an appropriate caste and income validity certificate and produce the same before the appropriate authorities in support of their claim that their caste, namely, Beda Jangama is a Scheduled Caste. 15. It appears that the petitioner No.1 submitted a representation dated 05.01.2003 and made a request before the Tahsildar to issue a caste certificate that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. Following the above, the Caste Verification Committee dropped the proceedings, in view of the order - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 passed by this Court in WP No.22676/1997. Following this, the caste certificate is issued to the petitioners, which was again placed before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 held enquiry and in terms of the impugned order declared that the petitioners belonged to the Lingayat caste and not Beda Jangama. Therefore, exercised jurisdiction under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1990' for short) and Rules, 1992, to prosecute the petitioners for obtaining a false caste certificate. The Tahsildar thereafter passed an order dated 13.02.2015 cancelling the caste certificate issued to the petitioners. The petitioners then challenged this order before this Court in WP No.8341-43/2015 but withdrew it with liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate authority. The respondent No.2 being the appropriate authority passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal. 16. It is relevant to note that this Court in WP No.22676/1997 had directed the petitioners to approach the Tahsildar of the area and obtain an appropriate caste and - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 income validity certificate. The petitioners soon thereafter obtained the caste certificate on that basis. The Scrutinising Committee, which was seized of the matter, dropped the proceedings regarding the verification of the caste of the petitioners in view of the deletion of Rule 9-A of the Rules, 1992. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be vexed twice for the same issue. Nonetheless, the power of the respondent No.2 to go into the correctness of the caste certificate issued to the petitioners, is preserved in the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4(F) of the Act, 1990. 17. In that view of the matter, without disturbing the caste certificate already granted to the petitioners, it is appropriate to set aside the order passed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 as well as the order passed by respondent No.4 and reserve liberty to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4(F) of the Act, 1990, to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 18. In view of the above, the following orders are passed. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The impugned order dated 18.01.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 in appeal CR No.14- 14B/2014-15 is set aside. iii. Similarly, the order bearing No.¸ÀA.f¸ÀPÀ/J¸ï.1/eÁ¥À/¹Dgï:5/2014-15 (Annexure-K) dated 06.02.2015 passed by the respondent No.3 is set aside. Likewise, the official memorandum bearing No.PÀæ/eÁw¥Àæ/¹Dgï/681 14-15, PÀæ/eÁw¥Àæ/¹Dgï/814 14-15 and PÀæ/eÁw¥Àæ/¹Dgï/680 14-15 (Annexures 'L', 'L1' and 'L2') all dated 13.02.2015 issued by respondent No.4 is set aside. iv. Since, there is no actual enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioners, liberty is reserved to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4(F) of the Karnataka Schedule Castes, - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32233 WP No. 5915 of 2016 Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment Etc.,) Act, 1990, to take appropriate action in accordance with law. v. It is needless to mention that if the Deputy Commissioner proposes to exercise suo moto power under Section 4(F) of the aforesaid Act, the petitioners shall be heard in the matter. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42