- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 200046 OF 2025 (GM-CC) BETWEEN: RESHMA W/O SHRIDHAR AGE: 27 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF TOWN MUNCIPALITY, HUMNABAD R/O INDIRA NAGAR, HUMNABAD, DIST BIDAR – 585401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DIST. CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, D.C.OFFICE BIDAR – 585401. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BASAVAKALYAN DIST.BIDAR – 585401. 3. THE TAHASILDAR HUMNABAD DIST.BIDAR – 585401. 4. SHIVAPUTRA MALAGE AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORKER R/O H.NO.1-96, INDIRA NAGAR, Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025 HUMNABAD, DIST.BIDAR - 585401 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C. JAGADISH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; R4 SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.203018/2024. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.203018/2024(GM-CC). 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that, the appellant was elected to the Town Municipal Council, Humnabad under the reserved category. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025 respondent No.4 filed a complaint to the authorities with regard to the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the appellant. The Caste Certificate issued came to be cancelled which was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed. 3. Sri. Chaithanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the appellant on 15.05.2019 which came to be challenged on 14.12.2020. Hence, there is a delay and on this ground alone, the respondent No.2 ought to have dismissed the appeal. Admittedly, no application for condonation of delay was filed. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the said aspect and dismissed the writ petition. The non-consideration of delay by the authority and the learned Single Judge is contrary to the Section 4-B of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred as - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025 ‘the Act’) as no appeal is maintainable beyond 30 days. It is further submitted that Caste Certificate issued by the 3rd respondent is in accordance with law and the same was issued after due verification and enquiry and the same should not have been cancelled by the 2nd respondent without condoning the delay. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, consequently by allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, Sri. C. Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the appellant got elected on the basis of a Caste Certificate as a Councilor to the Municipality. Admittedly, the appellant belongs to Yelam Reddy Caste, she got married to a person belonging to Schedule Caste and she adopted Buddhism religion. It is submitted that the appellant filed a nomination declaring that she belongs to Buddhist category-A and got elected. On the complaint of the 4th respondent, enquiry was conducted and it was found that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025 she does not belong to the Buddhist category-A caste, which has been rightly considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. 5. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and the material available on record. 6. The pleading and evidence available on record indicates that the appellant contested the election to the post of Councilor in Ward No.1 of Town Municipality, Humnabad as a person belonging to a reserve category and she got elected in the said election. The respondent No.4 filed complaints dated 14.12.2020 and 31.12.2020 before the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The respondent No.2 based on the complaint, conducted a detailed enquiry in the appeal after providing sufficient opportunity to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025 appellant and has set aside the Caste Certificate dated 15.05.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent – Tahsildar in favour of the appellant as a Buddhist-A category. The appellant has challenged the said order of the 2nd respondent dated 28.06.2024 before the respondent No.1. The 1st respondent after considering the material available on record has dismissed the revision petition. 7. The contention of the appellant that the Appellate Authority without condoning the delay has entertained the appeal, which was filed beyond 30 days has no merit and is accordingly rejected for the simple reason that Section 4-B of the Act provides for an appeal against the order under Section 4-A of the Act. Any person aggrieved by an order of the Tahsildar under Section 4-A of the Act, may within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the Assistant commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner after hearing both the parties and giving an opportunity of being heard, may pass an order on the appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025 8. In the case on hand, the 4th respondent filed a complaint immediately after the appellant got elected. In other words, he came to know about the obtaining of the false Caste Certificate by the appellant and thereafter the respondent No.4 filed the complaint with the 2nd respondent. The filing of appeal under Section 4-B of the Act is by any person aggrieved by an order of the Tahsildar under Section 4-A of the Act. 9. The 4th respondent is a third party challenging the issuance of Caste Certificate in favour of the appellant under Section 4-B of the Act by way of an appeal. Hence, the 30 days’ time provided would run from the date of the knowledge of obtaining the Caste Certificate under Section 4-A of the Act by the appellant. In Section 4-B of the Act, word ‘may’ is employed. Hence, the contention of delay as urged by the appellant has no merit and accordingly, rejected. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025 10. The learned Single Judge has recorded a clear finding that the appellant belongs to category III-A and she cannot claim the caste of her husband. The said finding is based on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs.Valsamma Paul vs. Cochin University and others1, Puneeth Rai vs. Dinesh Choudary2, Anjan Kumar vs. Union of India and others3 and the decision of this Court in the case of the Smt. Archana M.G. vs. Smt. Abhilasha and others4. The appellant belongs to category III-A and after the marriage, she adopted Buddhism, so she now cannot claim the benefit of being considered as belonging to Buddhist category-A caste. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge are based on the settled principles of law and on appreciation of the material on record, we do not find any error or perversity calling for interference in this intra Court appeal. 1 AIR 1996 SC 1011 2 (2003) 8 SCC 204 3 (2006) 3 SCC 257 4 W.P.No.3399/2022 DD:15.03.2022 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2240-DB WA No. 200046 of 2025 11. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any reason to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No orders to costs. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 CT: PS