Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

allowed

Advocates
  • PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar
Acts
  • Section 4-B
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

allowed

Advocates
  • PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar
Acts
  • Section 4-B
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Sri. Mallikarjun, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution challenging the impugned order dated 06.02.2020 (Annexure-B) concerning his application for a caste certificate stating he belongs to the Beda Jangam / Bedar-Jangam community. The petition records that the petitioner's application for a caste certificate was rejected and an appeal was considered (the text states the application was rejected by respondent No.1 and an appeal under Section 4-B of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.,) Act, 1990 was filed). The first respondent dismissed the appeal. The petitioner contended the dismissal contained no reasons. The respondents maintained that the petitioner had not produced documents required under Section 3-A of the Act. The High Court examined the matter and reserved the following order.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the impugned order dismissing the petitioner's appeal is sustainable when it contains no reasons (i.e., whether a non-speaking order can stand).
  2. Whether the matter should be quashed and remitted for reconsideration with an opportunity of hearing and a speaking order to be passed.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The first respondent dismissed the appeal without assigning any reasons; the order is not a speaking order.
  • A Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.147376/2020 (GM-CC) had set aside a similar order because it was not a speaking order (relied upon by the petitioner).

Respondents' Arguments

  • The petitioner did not produce the relevant documents required under Section 3-A of the Act; for that reason the respondent(s) rightly dismissed the appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
W.P.No.147376/2020 (GM-CC That an order which does not assign reasons is not a speaking order and can be set aside. The Court noted that a Coordinate Bench had set aside an order on this ground and treated the absence of reasons in the impugned order as a sufficient ground to quash it.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the submissions of parties and the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order revealed no reasons for dismissal of the appeal. The Court held that the impugned order is not a speaking order. On that ground alone the impugned order required quashing. The Court therefore allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 06.02.2020, and remitted the matter to the first respondent to reconsider the appeal after providing an opportunity of hearing and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Holding and Implications

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 06.02.2020 quashed.

Implications: The matter is remitted to the first respondent to reconsider the petitioner's appeal after affording an opportunity of hearing and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. This exercise must be completed within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the High Court's order. No broader precedent-setting implications were discussed in the opinion; the decision effects the direct relief of quashing the impugned order and remittance for fresh consideration.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    MALLIKARJUN v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

    1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

    DHARWAD BENCH

    DATED THIS THE 12THDAY OF APRIL 2021

    BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

    WRIT PETITION NO.101500 OF 2021 (GM-CC)

    BETWEEN

    SRI. MALLIKARJUN

    S/O SHANKAR MATAPATHI

    AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS,

    OCC. SEMI GOVT. EMPLOYEE,

    RESIDENTS OF BURUGALLI,

    H. NO. 2242, SANKESHWAR 591313

    TALUK HUKERI, DISTRICT BELGAUM

    ...PETITIONER

    (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADV.,)

    AND

    1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

    BELGAUM SUB DIVISION

    BELGAUM.

    2. THE TAHSILDAR

    HUKKERI,

    TALUK HUKKERI,

    DISTRICT BELGAUM

    …RESPONDENTS

    (BY SRI. C. JAGADISH, ADV.,)

    2

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &

    227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT

    OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT

    ANNEXURE-B DATED 06.02.2020 VIDE SCST.OBC-29/2019-20

    PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND DIRECT THE SAID

    RESPONDENT TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

    DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

    ORDER

    Petitioner's application to issue a caste certificate that he belongs to Beda Jangam community was rejected by respondent No.1 against which he filed an appeal before respondent No.2 under Section 4-B of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.,) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). The first respondent dismissed the appeal declining the request of the petitioner to issue caste certificate to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Bedar-Jangam caste. Hence, this petition.

    2. Learned counsel would submit that the first respondent without assigning any reasons has dismissed the appeal. He submits that under similar circumstances, the

    3

    Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.147376/2020 (GM-CC) has set aside the order on the ground that it is not a speaking order.

    3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has not produced relevant documents as required under Section 3-A of the Act. Hence, the respondent No.1 has rightly dismissed the appeal.

    4. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

    5. The petitioner's application for issuance of caste certificate to the effect that he belongs to Bedar-Jangam caste was rejected by the Tahasildar. Respondent No.1 has dismissed the appeal declining the request of the petitioner to issue caste certificate. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the first respondent has not assigned any reason for dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is not a speaking order and on that ground alone the impugned order requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

    4

    ORDER

    The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.02.2020 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-B is hereby quashed.

    The matter is remitted back to the first respondent to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

    The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

    Sd/-

    JUDGE

    yan

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    MALLIKARJUN v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
    (Apr 12, 2021)