IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATA!-(A AT BANGALQRE DATED THIS THE 6" DAY or DECEMBER 2019:"-.._c'_i~~..Vv BEFORE : THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MGHAN sHANIANA:Go'u:BAVR " WRIT PETITION No.32g7at'/2o:j+t_;;§mI;'¢c.')'~ Between : Rajani S We Shivanna R W/o Ramesh H Aged about 36 years ._ ~ R/o BobuIi--HinchuIl_i ViI|age~--v..:"i ' P.O. Salur, Thirthahalli Tlaluk Shimoga District. " ' ' . ' ..Petitioner (By Sri i(.'|'\l%H.V Am: - _ :_: _ ._ Tahsildan' Thirthahallix'Ta[ui< it Thirthahalli ' ' '~Sh5m_Q'§;.a Qistyrict. A' ..... .. v ..Respondent
Vrsyl’sa~.a. 5331. GA.,)
‘I”ii.is”‘Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement
_ d_ated”8.7.201O vide Annexure-E issued by the respondent
_’ Eanrcficonsequently direct the Tahsildar to issue caste
7T=..__”cert;§ficat:e that she belongs to schedule caste as Bhovi in
i __’terms of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of
Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division and Ors., Vs.
Bhovi Samaja Seva Sangha, Sirsi and Ors., reportedning ILR
2004 KR page 1584.
This Writ Petition coming on for prelimina’r–
‘B’ group this day, the Court made the foIlowi.ng_”_’:–…V ‘
okosg
y in * .
Petitioner has sought fora dire(:t_ion to th7e..TVahsii’£;ia’ritog
issue Caste Certificate to thelupnetlitionerll’certifying} that she
belongs to Scheduled caste ofthex judgment
of this Court V in th’e7:”A…ca’s’e DIVISIONAL
COMMISSIONER’j;§Er.c;iat1r«ir OTHERS –vs-
BHOVI sAM;4j)xi;:”3E#i4– 5:.-es: AND omens ( ILR
2003 KAiRl’15.s§:,). “iii-3′ ”
2. ‘PetitiionerlVappigilecbfor Caste Certificate by filing an
aPDlicati”on videi.,/_-\nnexlL*re.~’A’ dated 14.1.2008 before the
for issue of Caste Certificate, certifying that
she’b_e|ong’s._toBhcovi caste. Pursuant to the said application,
the 1″‘ahsi_id’a-rfgot conducted the local enquiry. A mahazar
by the concerned Village Accountant as per
i.r’lf\r2.ne><~u:re~' B' to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Bovi
if ldfcornmunity. One more inspection was conducted by the
to
Revenue Inspector. During the said inspection, onemore
mahazar was drawn as per Annexure~'C' to the
the petitioner belongs to Bhovi community.
on the local enquiry and mahaza_r~~repori:sV,"latheiéfah_sild"a,réu'
passed the order as per An nexu re–:'"-E' dated
effect that it is not possib'leV:""to isasue ~S,clr:ied'ti|'ed~ "Castei
Certificate in favour of the peAti.tiVo'rier"-.a'nd.'th'at..sha may be
furnished Category–1 based on Annexure–
'E', the certifica'te.__is gissaueld; Ii;,..n:Vnexure–'F' dated
8.7.2010 to belongs to Bovi
commu nVi,ty..(Cat:égt:«:i:y:_1 l'
3' mhis wi-it"pIet.iltio._n"~is:~"filed contending that Bovi as
well as.Bh0vlia"ar_e syiion',/rns: to each other and since Bhovi is
'ivV'unde-rt:l"St;hed–u|ed'"Ca'ste category, the Tahsildar may be
V'd_l_.rect_é'd certificate in favour of the petitioner
indi'Ca_tiangg.th'eijei:n that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled
Caste.
The question as to whether Bovi and Bhovi are
T -t’.,:vVsy’nonyms with each other or not is fully covered by the
l/3
Division Bench decision of this Court in the aforecited case
reported in we 2oo3 KAR 1584. In the said ;udgimert.t:,’~tethe
Division Bench has held that the persons
community shall be treated as befong.!ng to;’Bh’ov:i.’;vcoEnt4nunityA’
irrespective of the fact that the:’=.cas_te~°m’e~nt’i’o:ned iillliijnlatvhie
certificate is “bovi”, or “boyi” “o_r””!.bhov€’-‘ V .
5. Sri C.JagadishgulearnledlgiCtpicyéovernrnenit Advocate
appearing for the respondent_Vrei’_i’e§:V upo’nA–t;_ifie.’—judgment of the
Apex Court in t’h’e’«g1c;a’se MAHARASHTRA -vs-
MILIND Arvin orHEesj§'(ii.’iA”m’I.2691lsc 393), to contend
that by looking to the entries
in the Constitution”{Sc_hedu’i’eti Tribes) Order and no enquiry
can be held no ev-idlence can be let in to establish the
“CaAst’e/¥Tr:i,b.e_~~i. If a groupis not expressfy included in the Order
5.ctite:d’a,lge’dVV’Cajste/Schedufed Tribe, the same cannot be
allowed ‘included after the evidence is fet in on that
q.uest£of*ni.rThe aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court is
faV’lyAs’o_,_r’eferred to by the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division &
/~/\
others -~vs– Bhovi Samaja Seva Sangha, Sirsi, & others ( [LR
2003 KAR 1584) (cited supra). After considering»fizairioius
judgments of the Apex Court, the DiViSiQ.fi:’–:fi’a.Sj
concluded that the word “Bovi” is s_vn.o.n_ym .to””‘V’Ei’le’=..’jovi””..’_’_Sin-cell’ z
the facts of this case are coveredybyf_’_’th’e ftvhie
Division Bench of this Court, ‘the’~..same’V-needsto “he”–fol:’owed’.’Vl’
Accordingly, the following orde,r_.i.sV:,’ma’d.eA : .
The writ petition direction to the
respondent to Bhovi
community ceste mentioned in the
certificateisi$oyi,:eiiéncejfeiorthgere”synonyms to each other.
Consequvently,Vn*e,ce.Vsl$abfy~V.:gicertificate shall be issued to the
petitioner inldiciatinigi At°het”: the petitioner is belonging to
” ‘r3,ch¢fdlluieds. Caste (éhovij.
5&5-
IUB-$3
‘jj ??.b.!c/nk