Appeal Before Assistant Commissioner Cannot Be Filed If Tahsildar Cancelled Caste Certificate On Directions Of District Caste Verification Committee: Karnataka HC
|The Karnataka High Court observed that an appeal against cancellation of caste certificate on directions of District Caste Verification Committee cannot be filed before the Assistant
A writ petition was filed seeking to quash the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru, First Respondent, as being a coram non judice.
The Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna relied on Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad(2007 SC) and observed, “An appeal to the Assistant Commissioner/1st respondent would lie under the Act, if the Tahsildar has on independent application of mind rejected the application for issuance of caste certificate and not cancellation of a caste certificate on the directions of the Committee...Appeal to the Assistant Commissioner would lie under Section 4B against the order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 4A, which is either accepting or rejecting the application seeking issuance of caste certificate, as Section 4A deals with only issuance of caste certificate and Section 4B deals with appeal against an action on such issuance or non-issuance…Therefore, the appeal in the case at hand, before the Assistant Commissioner, is undoubtedly an appeal before a forum, which is coram non-judice…The proceeding before the 1st respondent is undoubtedly de hors jurisdiction and is now trite that, any proceeding or an order which is without jurisdiction is coram non-judice, resultantly, a nullity in law. Therefore, the very proceeding before the 1st respondent is contrary to law.”
Advocate Sadhana Desai appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate C Jagadish appeared for the Respondents.
The Respondent-Tahsildar issued a caste certificate to the fifth Respondent belonging to the Nayaka Community, a Scheduled Tribe. The Respondent contested election to councillor of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’). The Petitioner herein registered a complaint before the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement complaining that the 5th respondent had obtained a Scheduled Tribe certificate fraudulently.
The Complaint was transferred to Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement to the District Caste Verification Committee, Bangalore Urban District, i.e. Respondent-Committee, which cancelled the caste certificate. The Respondent-Tehsildar cancelled the caste certificate issued to the Respondent, which was again challenged vide appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Petitioner has challenged the proceedings of appeal before the Assistant Commissioner.
The Court held “The submission of the learned counsel Smt. Sadhana Desai appearing for petitioner merits acceptance, as the Tahsildar has no power to cancel a caste certificate. He can either accept or reject the application. Cancellation of caste certificate is the power vested with the Committee. The Tahsildar only implements the direction of the Committee. An appeal to the Assistant Commissioner/1st respondent would lie under the Act, if the Tahsildar has on independent application of mind rejected the application for issuance of caste certificate and not cancellation of a caste certificate on the directions of the Committee.”
The Court placed its reliance on Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka(2018 Kar) and observed, “The Apex Court holds that the caste certificate issued for the purpose of election which was the subject matter in BHARATI REDDY’S case (supra) was based on a disputed question of fact which would require evidence and accordingly directed the Committee to conclude the proceedings in a time bound manner. The caste certificate in the case before the Apex Court had been issued for election purpose. Therefore, I leave the issue open to the parties to avail all such remedy as is available in law.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ Petition and held that the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner stood obliterated.
Cause Title: B. Guruprasad v. Assistant Commissioner and Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Sadhana Desai
Respondents: Advocates C Jagadish and RB Sadasivappa