Karnataka HC Disposes Plea To Oust Councillor After Deputy Commissioner Again Cancels His Caste Certificate

The appellant sought a writ of quo warranto to remove respondent No. 5 from the office of councillor of Ward No. 51 of the Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation, alleging that he had obtained a false caste certificate. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on 1 December 2021, prompting this appeal.

In later proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner’s order of 24 March 2022 cancelling respondent No. 5’s caste certificate was set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration because the authority had not addressed the objection regarding limitation.

On remand, the Deputy Commissioner again cancelled the certificate by an order dated 20 August 2026. Respondent No. 5 stated that he intended to challenge that order; the order was placed before the Division Bench by the appellant.

A writ of quo warranto is sought to challenge a person’s authority to hold public office.

The Court’s decision proceeded on the case-specific basis that, after the Deputy Commissioner had again cancelled respondent No. 5’s caste certificate, respondent No. 5 had a remedy available under law to challenge that order before the appropriate forum; the Court cited no statute or precedent as the substantive basis for disposing of this appeal.

Section 4B of the Act was referred to in the earlier proceedings concerning the challenge before the Assistant Commissioner, but it was not the basis of the Division Bench’s disposition of this appeal.

The Court noted that the Deputy Commissioner had passed a fresh order cancelling the caste certificate and that respondent No. 5 could pursue the legal remedy available against that order. In those circumstances, the Court considered there was no warrant to entertain the appellant’s request for quo warranto in this appeal.

It left the parties’ contentions open for proceedings before the appropriate forum and did not determine the substantive validity of the caste certificate.

All contentions were left open for respondent No. 5 to raise in a petition or application before the appropriate forum.