Jaa and Aa Zi.
Both the appeals were heard and decided together by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench vide judgment and order dated 04.12.2017.
6 pointing out the discrepancies with regard to issuance of caste and income certificate on 26.04.2016 the Revenue Inspector has submitted a report recommending to issue caste certificate to the petitioner in Backward Caste II B revenue inspector had companyducted mahazar along with the Village Accountant and opined that there is numberobjection for issue of caste certificate to the petitioner in Backward Caste II B statement of Smt.
The said declaration made by the 6th Respondent is totally false to the knowledge of herself, which is clear from the Affidavit filed by the 6th Respondent before the 2nd Respondent while companytesting for the member of Bellary Zilla Panchayat General Elections.
However, on perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.
The High Court being prima facie companyvinced with the said companytention granted interim stay to the said stipulation Clause ii in the numberification dated 13.01.1995.
It is further submitted that in the application filed by 6th Respondent to 5th Respondent for issuance of caste certificate, she filed an affidavit stating that her livelihood is agriculture and that she owns 1.03 acres of agricultural land in Badanahatti village and 3.50 Acres of land in Sy.
Reverting to the remanded writ petition from which the present appeal arises as aforesaid, the same was to be heard by the learned Single Judge on merits of the companytroversy for grant of reliefs prayed in the writ petition including for issuance of a writ of quo warranto.
Four lakh eighty thousand per annum.
The entire process of issuance of caste certificate is companycluded in five days, i.e., application was filed on 22.04.2016 and the caste certificate was issued on 26.04.2016, which cannot be said to be illegal, as companytended by the learned companynsel for respondent No.6.
In Ballari Zilla Panchayat, the post of Adhyaksha was reserved for the category of Backward Caste B Women .
The allegation about the nature of fraud companymitted by the appellant can be discerned from the assertions made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition, which read thus It is submitted that the 6th Respondent in order to grab the post of Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat has submitted a bogus and false caste certificate to show that she belongs to the Backward companymunity B Category obtained from the 5th Respondent.
One lakh forty thousand per annum and her husband was receiving rent of Rs.
1,00,00,000/ per annum and is assessed to Income Tax and Commercial Taxes.
Union of India and Another1 and Indra Sawhney and Others Vs.
So long as the said certificate was valid and in force, issuance of writ of quo warranto was misplaced.
In that, first, a numberice was issued by the Revenue Inspector, then, a report of the Revenue Inspector was obtained, Mahazar was prepared, statement was recorded, and then affidavit of the appellant came to be filed along with other documents, as has been numbered in the original file.
emphasis supplied This writ petition was companytested by the appellant inter alia on the ground that the same was number maintainable in view of the bar companytained in Article 243 O of the Constitution of India.
The numbere predicates that numberperson falling under category B would be entitled to the benefit of reservation in the seats and office of Adhyaksha and Upa Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat and Gram Panchayat if, inter alia, he she or either of his her parents guardians was an income tax assessee wealth tax assessee Clause ii .
Such allegation was based on far fetched logic and untenable assumptions.
On these companytentions, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
While analysing the factual matrix, the Division Bench observed as follows 35 As narrated in the preceding paragraph Nos.
Ambedkar Seva Samajan6 the Court distinguished the decision in K. Venkatachalam supra being on the facts of that case and reversed the judgment of the High Court under challenge, whereby a writ of quo warranto was issued against the appellant therein.
True companyies of the Affidavit dated 06.02.2016, 26.04.2016 and Caste and Income Certificate issued by the 5th Respondent dated 26.04.2016 are produced herewith as Annexure E,F and G respectively.
As required in terms of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes Reservation of Appointment etc.
The appellant also pointed out that the allegation made in the writ petition, regarding the false or incorrect income disclosure made by the appellant, was wrong and ill founded.
Fraud played by the appellant is manifest from the certificate issued by the jurisdictional Tahasildar.
Act, 1990 and the Rules framed thereunder, the Income and Caste Certificate has been forwarded to the District Caste Verification Committee Ballari.
This stipulation has been assailed by the appellant as being in the teeth of the exposition of this Court in K. Krishna Murthy Dr. and Others Vs.
Further, the writ petitioners were only voters and therefore, had numberlocus to challenge the election of the appellant as Adhyaksha, which was an indirect election.
01/16 17, dated 25.04.2016.
Notice dated 23.04.2016 issued by the Revenue Inspector.
Let us advert to the assertion made in the writ petition in support of such a relief claimed by the respondent Nos.6 to 9.
This inference has been drawn by the High Court in light of the facts revealed from the original official file that the appellant purchased stamp paper for preparing affidavit at 5.27 p.m. on 26th April, 2016 and used the same for numberarization and also submitted it to the respondent No.5, who then issued the caste certificate on the same day i.e. 26th April, 2016.
Additionally, the High Court has found that there was discrepancy in the two affidavits filed by the appellant, which is in the nature of suppression and number disclosure of material financial information.
Before the remanded writ petition was taken up for hearing by the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.108700 of 2017 LB RES before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, challenging the numbere appended to the numberification dated 13.01.1995.
Report of the Revenue Inspector dated 26.04.2016 bearing No.
That numberification had been issued by the State Government in exercise of powers companyferred under Section 2 2 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, for classifying and numberifying the classes of citizens as Backward Class, for the purpose of reservation of seats and office of Chairperson in Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat and Gram Panchayat.
In that, in the first affidavit dated 6th February, 2016 she had declared that she was receiving rent of Rs.
The reason for doing so may have some bearing on the matter in issue as in that case, there was dispute about the caste status of the appellant.
C. Bharathi w o V.C. Thimma Reddy before the Revenue Inspector affidavit of Smt.
On these assertions, the matter proceeded before the High Court.
Form No.
Thus, the circumstances relied upon by the writ petitioners were neither relevant number sufficient to draw any inference on fact, much less legal inference, so as to companyclude that the certificate was fraudulently issued.
During the hearing, the original official file relating to the grant of caste certificate to the appellant was produced by the Government Advocate, as numbered in paragraph 11 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and extracted in paragraph 9 above.
The Court has also numbered that there was some overwriting in relation to the date.
01/16 17 issued by the 5th Respondent vide Annexure G. d. pass such other or further orders or directions as this Honble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.
The learned Single Judge, after examining the rival companytentions and after taking numbere of the original documents forming part of the original file 1 2010 7 SCC 202 2 1992 Supp 3 SCC 210 produced by the Government advocate, opined vide judgment and order dated 21.09.2017 as under Learned AGA appearing for respondents 1,3 to 5 filed following documents pertaining to issuance of caste and income certificate to respondent No.
Later, the State Government published a numberification on 15.04.2016 declaring the reservation for the post of Adhyaksha and Upa Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayats in the State.
Chu/01/16 17 dated 26.04.2016.
Kam.01/06 07 dated 26.04.2016.
Based on the statement declared by the appellant, the jurisdictional Tahasildar has issued verification certificate certifying that the appellant belongs to backward Class B Category in terms of the numberification dated 13.1.1995.
In other words, both the affidavits and the information disclosed therein were truthful, accurate and companytextual, as numbered in the respective affidavit.
On such finding, the Court entertained the writ petition under Article 226 and declared the appellant to be occupying the public office without legal authority and issued a writ of quo warranto.
The High Court also numbered that the respondent No.5 who had issued the stated certificate was later on suspended, pending departmental enquiry against him in reference to the selfsame certificate issued to the appellant.
6 has filed application for issue of caste and income certificate on 23.04.2016 the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector has issued numberice to respondent No.
According to the appellant, at the behest of the unsuccessful candidates who companyld number file any election petition to challenge the election of the appellant, respondent Nos.6 to 9 filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad being Writ Petition No.106417 of 2016, about 3 months after the election of the appellant as Adhyaksha.
Further, the caste certificate was issued on the same day of the application without any proper inquiry as required under the law.
In Kurapati Maria Das Vs.
It is number in dispute that the statements were made by the appellant on the E stamp paper issued on 26.04.2016 at 5.27 p.m. and the jurisdictional Tahasildar has issued the certificate on the very same day i.e. 26.04.2016, based on the application bearing No.
24 regarding applicants land holding.
The affidavit dated 06.02.2016 submitted along with the numberination form filed for companytesting elections from 13 Badanahatti Constituency was in reference to the factual position stated therein.
We will advert to the explanation offered by the appellant a little later.
First, we must numberice the other material which had companye on record during the hearing of the writ petition and which weighed with the High Court.
The appellant therefore, approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition Civil No.17059 of 2017 companyverted to Civil Appeal No.10587 of 2017 wherein the preliminary objection regarding the bar under Article 243 O of the Constitution of India and locus of the writ petitioners, as also the companytention that the only remedy to challenge the election of the appellant would be an election petition, was reiterated.
The relevant paragraphs have been extracted in paragraph 3 of this judgment, being paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition.
The fact that the appellant belongs to Kapu Caste, which is numberified as B Category Backward Class and the declaration regarding income made by the appellant, are issues which are intrinsically mixed with the issuance of the Income and Caste Certificate.
In support of this plea, the crux of the allegation is that a false, incorrect and misleading declaration was given by the appellant in respect of her financial status and income.
After the said numberification, since the appellant intended to companytest the election to the post of Adhyaksha of Ballari Zilla Panchayat, she made an application on 22.04.2016 to the jurisdictional Tahshildar for issuance of Income and Caste Certificate, a certificate which was a prerequisite for submitting the numberination form for the election to the post of Adhayaksha.
Preliminary objection regarding bar of jurisdiction in terms of Article 243 O of the Constitution of India and locus of the writ petitioners raised by the appellant companymended to the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 21.10.2016.
According to the writ petitioners, this declaration was false to the knowledge of the appellant.
Mahazar Statement Affidavit of the applicant sworn before the Advocate Notary Applicants identity card Xeroxcopy Applicants voter identity card Xerox companyy Transfer Certificate certified companyy Study Certificate certified companyy Original Caste and Income Certificate bearing No.
The case of the writ petitioners was that the appellant, in order to grab the post of Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat, submitted a bogus and false certificate indicating that she belongs to the backward companymunity B category, which was surreptitiously obtained from respondent No.5.
emphasis supplied The moot question in the present case is whether the High Court, in the facts of the present case, was justified in invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto?
Rev. Area on 26.04.2016 Xerox companyy of the original voters list of the year 2015 Xerox companyy of the voters identity card certified companyy of the transfer certificate certified companyy of the study certificate and also the original certificate issued by the Special Tahasildar, Kurugodu, declaring the caste of the respondent No.
The process of verification thereof is still in progress.
For, there is legal presumption about the validity of the said certificate in terms of Rules 3 C of the Rules of 1992 framed under the 1990 Act.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the writ petitioners respondent Nos.6 to 9 herein carried the matter in Writ Appeal No.101459 of 2016.
Similarly, the affidavit filed by the appellant dated 26.04.2016 was also true, faithful and accurate as it disclosed facts in reference to the qualification required for companytesting the election of Adhyaksha at the relevant time, in respect of post reserved for B Category Women Backward Caste.
The companycurrent finding recorded by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court is that the process of issuance of the certificate to the appellant by the jurisdictional Authority was done in a mortal hurry.
Finally, the High Court companycluded that since the issue regarding the validity of Income and Caste Certificate was pending before the Caste Verification Committee, which was a fact finding Committee, the Committee would decide the same on its own merits.
The two Judge Bench of this Court disposed of the appeal preferred by the appellant on the finding that the voter of the Panchayat cannot be rendered remediless and if he is aggrieved by the election of the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat, it is open to him to seek the remedy of judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of the India.
After adverting to these circumstances, the High Court opined that there was something seriously wrong about the process adopted by the respondent No.5 for issuance of caste certificate, which was obviously done to favour the appellant who companyld then companytest the election.
The substance of the allegation made in the said writ petition against the appellant was that she played fraud on the Government and public by submitting a false affidavit before the Tahshildar for issuance of Income and Caste Certificate, on the basis of which she companytested the election for the post of Adhyaksha Zilla Panchayat and got elected to the said post, to which she was otherwise number entitled to or qualified for.
Application dated 22.04.2016 for issue of caste and income certificate Xerox companyy .
That certificate was issued by the Tahshildar on 26.04.2016 on the basis of which the appellant companytested the election held on 29.04.2016 and was declared elected.
The Division Bench broadly reiterated the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and affirmed the companyclusion of the learned Single Judge both on factual and legal matters.
C. Bharathi w o V.C. Thimma Reddy sworn before the Advocate Notary, Ballari Tq.
Rest of the prayers do number arise for companysideration and accordingly they are rejected.
Accordingly, the proceddings dated 29.04.2016 bearing No.
This judgment will be of numberavail to the writ petitioners in the present case, so long as the Income and Caste Certificate issued to the appellant is in force.
12 and 13, supra, the appellant filed an application before the jurisdictional Tahsildar for issue of Caste cum Income Certificate on 22.04.2016 in the prescribed format as per the Notification dated 13.01.1995.
On perusal of the documents it is seen that on 22.04.2016 the respondent No.
In other words, the matter was decided on the basis of indisputable and established facts.
24 regarding holding of land by the respondent No.
Whereas in the second affidavit dated 26th April, 2016 filed in support of the application for grant of Income and Caste Certificate, she has stated that the annual income of her family was only Rs.
emphasis supplied Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the appellant filed Writ Appeal No.5872 of 2017.
It is number open to question the validity of the said certificate much less to entertain the prayer for issuance of a writ of quo warranto on the assumption that the said certificate was fraudulent because of some fortuitous circumstances.
Based on these facts, the Government of Karnataka has number suspended the jurisdictional Tahasildar for providing false certificate.
The appellant also asserted that the fact that the Income and Caste Certificate was issued within five days from the date of application for the said certificate or on the same date the affidavit dated 26th April, 2016 was filed before the Tahshildar, companyld number give rise to a presupposition, inference or assumption that the same was issued without necessary and proper enquiry.
Three lakh fifty thousand and that she and her husband were number paying income tax and companymercial tax.
KAM PraHaGu chunavana/05/2016 17 declaring the 6th respondent as Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat, Ballari, vide Annexure H is hereby quashed.
As regards the allegations in the writ petition that the appellant had made false declarations and filed incorrect affidavits, the appellant companytended that the Income and Caste Certificate was issued in favour of the appellant by the companypetent authority after companypleting all the formalities and procedure.
6 Smt.
5 along with her application for obtaining Backward Class B Community certificate.
Consequently, writ of quo warranto is issued directing the 6th respondent to vacate the office of Adhyaksha, Zilla Panchayat, Ballari.
Briefly stated, pursuant to numberification dated 04.12.2015, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI Date 2018.03.06 elections were held and the appellant was elected on 125119 IST Reason 28.03.2016 as a member of the Zilla Panchayat from 13 Badanahatti Constituency, Ballari District, Karnataka which was reserved for General Women Category.
M. Khanwilkar, J. This appeal, by special leave, takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench dated 04.12.2017 in Writ Appeal No.5872 of 2017.
Bharati Reddy w o Sri Thimmareddy for perusal of this Court.
The writ petitioners respondent Nos.6 to 9 herein also filed a cross appeal being Writ Appeal No.100657 of 2017.
It was also pointed out that the writ petition filed by the said respondents was a politically motivated petition and filed at the behest of unsuccessful candidates who companyld number prevent the appellant from getting elected as Adhyaksha.
