High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Ashok vs The Deputy Commissioner on 28 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Ashok vs The Deputy Commissioner on 28 March, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KHRNATAJEK, BPLNGPLDORE
HATED THIS 'J"'l'-IE 1'9?!-I BAY OF MARCH 2003
BEFORE

THE HOIHVELE MR. JUSTICE l€.L..l~1P.NJUNPa'I"H

W_D_Mn_£flfl.,d. HF '3{'|f'I!lIGM..i""f"\

33: Asaax

5!O.HAGhPEA Kbbl.

fifififi fifififlf 46 Tinfis, »._ =A'a T»..
wunxznc as sn.TELncan'aEr;cE *-V .1', *"~
333?.tswahi,0/o.sUB-nlviarouab 03:10:?
TELEC9M,ESNh,NIRANI,CHIKDflI_?3LUK," 
EELGAHM nIsTn1c7;*.' F '»' 'g

'}5;;.,§E§1&:oNnn

{Hy 5:1 nnnncanfifian.mhLi;jAayb¢Ar£)V'

1  IlEP_U'3""!;' :asfzwd#r:z'n+%.%A% 
a3LaAuM'n13wn:cm,¢»,
az:.«:;mm. A    *   

2 was mnmsipnnn VA» '
cHIxnDI"maLux;
gggaaun, '-,
»»., ~- ..... @' ... RESPONDENTB

V.z.~;i.;vr:.9'.;%;r:vJtas:.'.:i;I1s1-I, syn. GD'|!'I'.AJIl'U'0CA'PE

 {:"n"-V :3; !'u':I,|J~'J1£F

AT'E-i__l"3 3!". AFI Lfifi U"?:TfiE"FL FFTTCLES 225 EH13 227 OF
'1"'I-TE 'ZJ'II3PfS"fJ;TU'1'I*:5N OF INDIA TO QUASH '1'!-IE IME'UGNEIl

' 3§«¢nnnn aw, 12.3.2009, Iasumn av my: R2 vznn ANR-F,
."a3'TH 'SAME BEING TOTALLY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL Ann
4-new-sqfiwnznnnnn nun awe.

V E':*}:a:i.s patitian earning on for praliminary
nagging this day; the ma-...-:'*.= ...e-5!- t;..e .f-::ll:.n.eing:-



ORDER

E-Iaazrofl the counsel for than parties.

‘.2. It is the man at’ the patiti-anar that in

the year 1939, the Tahsildar, Chikodi has i….a,

a caste certificate stating that the petitiqja-1&1′

belongs t-:I ‘Tholmrzi. Kali’ caste. _B_e_I_g.e:gA4_j”..<.IVV1i.:VA.Tf§!';_!_! 3

alarm-m J..Inpa:."fiman'E urnaar schafiuléd 6;-:-;.'ba.
w.e.f. 20.3.1982. Baagfi Q21"'£h§ "'J.§tt#£'"'0;fVE the
Duputsr Superintendent_:' $c:,f' " Belqaum
dated 1.9.2ou?, gm aq§fiirfi;w§& ¢ofidfiEfod and tha
2" raspandqnfv 33:21.5: ':.:'qi1_:*::!gVx–.." . 3 . 1990 has
cancalleg """ _1*tfial%_ ¢§$f§*:m.9éxt1ricata with
ratro3pé»;AtiveA Vfiffi-git,»"«./V_h'3'hi:a' Index is called in

question .§6–ti£ion.

pe£’i.1ma.J.._….«:3.f the impugned order, it is

‘=:_l’-a.a}t* ‘§”.’h fi:.t «,jE”d.._ respondent has not given any

the petitioner and that the

Vpravi§i’égri$J RuJ.a~–3 (A) of the Karnataka

.’A44’Sr.¥hAec£L;1ar3″”castes and Scheduled Tribes and ather-

aé¢itw’.:.Ed Castes inasarvatian) rzulaa, 1992, has

like-t mean followed butane conducting the enquiry.

/

»2>/

If the petitioner does not belong to ‘Thokari
Kali’ canto, the Tahaildar was required to follow

than procedure prescribed in ‘Madhuri Pati1’s

case. This fact is not disputed by the lea;n§G._V’

Gcnrernment Advccate .

4. In the circumstances, “nth-n_4wrif””p’n.§;ifin_n’

is allcrwed. Annexurew-F dated

the 2″‘ respondent is hereby-<–.._Vgua.§mad.V I-i';v:"'ijaf_rv««.npnen %

for the 2" raspnndnnt to i4i"'::£nn:i.V;Jc:t in
accortianca with law ' "procedure as
laid dawn in Madhuri Pat_i':_i.-'_s.v'V.¢£:i;sa\';._V-~_.I[';

Judge