SRI VADIVELU vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 03 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 13961 OF 2024 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VADIVELU
S/O SRI. DORESWAMY @ CHINNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT TAMILU CAMP
HUNASEKATTE VILLAGE AND JUNCTION
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIVMOGA DISTRICTCT
PIN-577 115
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI: N SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT CELL
NO.1, TECHNICAL EDUCATION BHAVANA
ST
1 FLOOR, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT CELL
DAVANAGERE REGION
DAVANAGERE-577 001
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVMOGA DISTRICT
SHIVMOGA-577 201
5. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
(ADMINISTRATION)
ZILLA PANCHAYATH
SHIVMOGA-577 201
6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
SHIVMOGA DISTRICT
SHIVMOGA-577 201
7.
THE THASILDAR
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIVMOGA DISTRICT
PIN-577 301
8. SRI. MUTTURAJ
S/O SRI. VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT HUNASEKATTE VILLAGE
AND JUNCTION
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIVMOGA DISTRICT
PIN-577 115
9. SRI. S. VIRUPAKSHAPPA
S/O SRI. SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
PRESIDENT OF PLD BANK
HUNASEKATTE VILLAGE
AND JUNCTION
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIVMOGA DISTRICT
PIN-577 115
10. SRI. A.R. PARAMESHWARAPPA
S/O SRI. RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
DISTRICT CO-ORDINATOR
ZILLA SANGARSHA SAMITHI
- 3 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
R/AT HUBBANAHALLI VILLAGE
BALE KOPPA POST
SHIVMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN-577 423
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: C JAGADEESH, SPL.PP R1 TO R7;
SRI: S. SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R8 & R10
SRI: SAMMITH S ADVOCATE FOR R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER NO.UNI/SAKAESHI/JATI/C.R-9/2022-23,
DATED 04.04.2024 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND PRESIDENT OF DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME
VERIFICATION COMMITTEE (DCVC), SHIVAMOGAA DISTRICT,
SHIVAMOGAA (R4 TO R7) VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 08.10.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT,
THIS DAY, T.P.VIVEKANANDA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of
writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 04.04.2024 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner and President of District Caste
and Income Verification Committee, Shivamogga District
(DCVC), whereby, a direction had been issued to respondent
No.7 - Tahsildar, Bhadravathi Taluk to cancel the Caste
Certificate bearing No.RD00338126138603 dated 07.01.2017
issued in favour of the petitioner.
- 4 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in
the writ petition are that, the petitioner was born on
22.03.1981 and he was admitted to the Government School
with admission No.21 of 1987-88. At the time of admission, the
caste of the petitioner was informed to the school authorities as
Bhovi. It is the assertion of the petitioner that in the
subsequent school records upto the pre-university, the caste of
the petitioner was continued to be indicated as Bhovi. In the
year 2017, the petitioner had applied for issue of fresh Caste
Certificate. On considering the said request, the caste
certificate bearing No. RD00338126138603 dated 07.01.2017
was issued by respondent No.7 - Tahsildar. It is the assertion
of the petitioner that the school records of his brother Sri C
Vishwanath also depicts the caste as Bhovi. The relevant school
records of his brother are also placed on record. It is his
contention that based on the respective certificates regarding
the caste Bhovi, the petitioner and his brother have obtained all
the benefits provided by the State to the Bhovi Community.
3. In the year 2021, Sri Mutturaj/respondent No.8
herein submitted a complaint to respondent No.3 -
Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights and Enforcement Cell,
Davangere, complaining that the petitioner has obtained the
- 5 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
caste certificate of Bhovi, though he does not belong to the said
caste. However, his actual caste being 'Boyer' in the State of
Tamil Nadu, from which place, the father of the petitioner has
migrated to the State of Karnataka. The caste 'Boyer' is not a
Scheduled Caste in the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the
petitioner has falsely claimed the caste Bhovi and obtained all
benefits attached to the said caste.
4. Respondent No.2 had obtained a report from
respondent No.3 regarding the complaint submitted by
respondent No.8. In the said report, respondent No.3 has
reported that based on the customs and rites followed by the
family of the petitioner and on enquiry of the local residents
and the documents collected, so also, the explanation of
Tahsildar, Bhadravathi Taluk, confirmed that the petitioner
belongs to Bhovi caste and reported to close the enquiry.
Accepting the report of respondent No.3, respondent No.4 by
Memorandum dated 31.01.2022 has closed the proceedings
and issued necessary endorsement to the applicant. Without
challenging the Memorandum dated 31.01.2022 in the manner
known to law, respondent No.8 had submitted a
representation/complaint dated 30.11.2022, which was
acknowledged by respondent No.3 on 01.12.2022, to again re-
- 6 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
verify the documents and to take action against the petitioner
for furnishing false documents and fabrication of the
Government records.
5. Taking cognizance of the said complaint,
respondent No.3 called upon respondent No.7 - Tahsildar to
offer clarifications regarding the 10 points raised in the
Communication dated 28.02.2023. In response to the same,
respondent No.7 has furnished the information through his
Communication dated 13.09.2023. Upon receipt of the
report/clarification from respondent No.7 - Tahsildar, the
respondent No.3 has forwarded a detailed report to respondent
No.2. There is another report dated 03.10.2023 forwarded by
the office of respondent No.2 to the office of respondent No.3.
Finally, on 12.12.2023, respondent No.2 referring to another
complaint filed by respondent No.9 herein had forwarded the
report of respondent No.3 to the Deputy Director, Social
Welfare Department to take action in accordance with the Rules
and forward the final order to the office of respondent No.2.
6. It is based on the aforesaid reports and
communications, the proceedings were initiated by the Social
ಉ ಉ/ಸಕಇ ಉ ಉ ಸಕಇ ಸಕಇ/ಾ
ಸಕಇ ಾ
ಾ
/ ಆ ಾ
ಆ ಆ -09/2022 ಆ 09/2022 09/2022-23 09/2022 23 23 23
Welfare Department in case No.
- 7 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
dated 04.02.2024. In the said proceedings, original
complainant, Sri Muttu Raj and other two complainants i.e.,
respondent Nos.9 and 10 were cited as complainants and the
petitioner was arrayed as respondent. The proceedings was
initiated under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner,
DCVC, Shivamogga District. The order at Annexure-A has been
passed by the DCVC headed by the Deputy Commissioner,
directing cancellation of the caste certificate dated 07.01.2017.
The said order is in challenge in the present writ petition.
7. The writ petition is opposed by respondent No.9 by
filing the statement of objections.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner by re-
iterating the contentions urged in the writ petition submits that
the proceedings initiated by the respondents itself is not
maintainable in light of the closure of the earlier proceedings
through Memorandum dated 31.01.2022. Respondent Nos.8 to
10 have no locus standi to lodge the complaint before DCVC.
The complaint lodged by respondent Nos.8 to 10 is politically
motivated and the impugned order has been passed without
looking into the school certificate, income certificate, census
report, the report of Tahsildar and the mahazar conducted at
- 8 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
the village and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set
at naught.
9. Per contra, it is the contention of the respondent
No.9 that upon thorough inquiry, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have
forwarded the detailed report to the District Social Welfare
Officer reporting that the petitioner belongs to Boyer caste,
which is not a scheduled caste in the State of Tamil Nadu,
however, it is a backward class and therefore, upon migration
from the State of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner cannot seek the
benefit of the caste Bhovi. It is the contention that the
documents relating to education are all obtained by producing
false and incorrect information and there are certain fabrication
of the Government records. Therefore, the order impugned
does not call for any interference. The petitioner being the
person belonging to Boyer caste is not entitled to obtain the
benefits attached to the caste Bhovi.
10. In addition, respondent No.9 contends that the writ
petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, inasmuch as,
the impugned order states that the same has been passed in
exercise of power under Section 4C and 4E of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
- 9 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
Classes (Reservation of Appointments Etc.,), 1990 (for short
'the Act'). Therefore, as against the order passed under Section
4C of the Act, the appeal lies under Section 4D of the Act to the
Commissioner/Director of Social Welfare and hence, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed only on the said ground.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.9 re-iterating
the contention urged in statement of objection placed reliance
on the following judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
this Court:
(i) B Basavalingappa Vs D Munichinnappa,
reported in AIR 1965 SC 1269;
(ii) Nityanand Sharma and Another Vs State of
Bihar and Others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2306;
(iii) Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar,
Patna Vs The State of Bihar and Others reported in (2024)
7 SCR 796;
(iv) Sri Sangappa M Bagewadi Vs State of
in RP No.100100 of 2024 DD on
Karnataka and Others,
12.02.2025; and
(v) Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka and Others, in
Writ Petition No.203394 of 2023 DD on 17.03.2025."
- 10 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the respondents and perused the writ petition papers, so
also, statement of objections filed by respondent No.9.
13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier
obtained the caste certificate in the year 1991 and claimed the
benefit of the caste Bhovi throughout. Only when the petitioner
has obtained the caste certificate in the year 2017, objection
was initially raised by respondent No.8 and later by respondent
Nos.9 and 10. At the first instance, the complaint submitted by
respondent No.8 had been closed through Memorandum dated
31.01.2022. However, being dissatisfied with the closure of the
complaint, respondent No.8 again approached respondent No.3
to re-enquire into the matter and review the decision. It is the
said complaint which gave rise to obtaining of fresh reports
from the office of Tahsildar, so also, forwarding of the report by
respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 to
the Director, Social Welfare Department, which resulted in
initiation of the proceedings.
14. On a reading of all the aforesaid reports and the
impugned order, it is seen that the proceedings initiated at the
instance of respondent Nos.8 to 10 cannot be at any stretch of
- 11 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
imagination be construed as an appeal either under Section 4B
or under Section 4D of the Act. In the impugned order, DCVC
headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga District,
though refers to the provisions of Sections 4C and 4E of the
Act, however, the order impugned cannot be traced to be under
Sections 4C and 4E of the Act. Under the Scheme of the Act,
the Tahsildar is empowered to issue the Caste Certificate on the
request of any candidate or his parent or guardian belonging to
the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes either for
appointment to any service or post or for admission to course
of study in a university or any educational institution, in such
form and in such manner as may be prescribed for issue of
Caste Certificate. Any person aggrieved by an order of the
Tahsildar under Section 4A of the Act may prefer an appeal to
the Assistant Commissioner of the Revenue Sub-Division within
30 days under the provisions of Section 4B of the Act. The
order passed under Section 4B of the Act is final and no further
appeal or revision is provided.
15. Under Section 4C of the Act, the State is
empowered to constitute Verification Committee for each
District for verification of Caste Certificate and Income
Certificate issued under Section 4A or 4B of the Act. Any person
- 12 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
aggrieved by the order passed by the Verification Committee
under Section 4C of the Act may file an appeal within 30 days
from the date of receipt of the order to the
Commissioner/Director Social Welfare in respect of the Caste
Certificate relating to person belonging to the Scheduled Caste
under Section 4D of the Act.
16. In the present case, the complaint filed by
respondent No.8 or respondent No.9 cannot be considered as
an appeal under Section 4B or under Section 4D of the Act.
Therefore, the Caste and Income Verification Committee
constituted under Section 4C of the Act could not have
assumed the jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint submitted
by respondent Nos.8 and 9. The order under Section 4C of the
Act could be passed by the District Caste and Income
Verification Committee only when a request is made to the
Committee for issue of validation certificate.
17. In the present case, the petitioner or the appointing
authority or any authority making admission to a course of
study in the University or any educational institution have not
sought for issue of validation certificate. Therefore, the
impugned order passed by the DCVC exercising its purported
- 13 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
power under Section 4C of the Act, cannot be sustained.
Inasmuch as, respondent Nos.8 and 9 were either the
applicants or the objectors before the Verification Committee in
a proceedings under Section 4C of the Act. Therefore, the
entire proceedings commencing from the submission of the
complaint/representation by respondent No.8 to the respondent
No.3 and all further internal correspondences between
respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 7 are all contrary to the scheme of
the Act. The submission of the complaint by respondent No.8 to
respondent No.3 itself was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the
remedy which was available to respondent No.8 was only to file
an appeal under Section 4B of the Act before respondent No.6 -
Assistant Commissioner or a revision under Section 4F of the
Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Shivamogga District.
18. In that view of the matter, it is imperative for this
Court to obliterate the entire proceedings commencing from the
stage of submission of complaint dated 30.11.2022 (submitted
on 01.12.2022) at Annexure-M and all further proceedings upto
the date of passing of the impugned order is one being without
authority of law and without jurisdiction. However, this order
obliterating the entire proceedings referred to supra would not
be a bar for respondent Nos.8 to 10 initiating appropriate
- 14 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
proceedings in the manner known to law before the appropriate
authority, as observed in the body of this order. However,
respondent Nos.8 to 10 will have to establish their locus standi
to question the validity of the caste certificate issued in favour
of the petitioner in terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs
1
The State of Maharashtra and Others .
19. The complaint submitted by respondent Nos.8 to 10
could have been considered as one of the revision petition
before the Deputy Commissioner to examine the records
relating to issue of Caste Certificate under Section 4A of the
Act. Further, in the present case, the petition/complaint was
not submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of the District.
However, the same has been submitted to respondent No.3.
The impugned order cannot also be considered as an order
passed under Section 4F of the Act in exercise of the power suo
moto , inasmuch as, the impugned order is not passed by the
Deputy Commissioner of the District alone. However, the same
is passed by the Committee headed by the Deputy
Commissioner. The exercise of power by the Committee headed
1
(2013) 4 SCC 465
- 15 -
WP No. 13961 of 2024
by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be equated with that of
the revisional power of the Deputy Commissioner under Section
4F of the Act.
20. In view of the above, consideration of the
judgments cited on behalf of respondent No.9 would not arise.
21. In the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The Order dated 04.04.2024 in
No.UNI/SAKAESHI/JATI/C.R-9/2022-23 passed by respondent
Nos.4 to 7 vide Annexure-A, is hereby quashed.
It is made clear that, allowing of the writ petition and
obliteration of the impugned order would not come in the way
of respondent Nos.8 to 10 initiating appropriate legal
proceedings, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in
compliance with the requirement of establishment of locus
standi of respondent Nos.8 to 10 to challenge the validity of the
caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.
Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE
BGN