# BHARATI REDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2018] 3 S.C.R. 137
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-03-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1763 of 2018
- **Bench:** Dipak Misra, A. M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bharati-reddy-v-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-32791
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

Constitution of India: Art. 226 - Writ of quo warranto -
Issuance of, when - On facts, appellant got elected to the post of
Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat - Writ petition before the High Court
alleging that the appellant played fraud on the government by
submitting a false affidavit for issuance of Income and Caste
Certificate - Prayer seeking issuance of writ of quo warranto
directing appellant to vacate the office of Adhyaksha, allowed by
the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court - As
regards the Income and Caste Certificate, directions to Caste
Verification Committee to proceed with the matter - On appeal, held:
Unless the Court is satisfied that the incumbent was not eligible at
all as per the statutory provisions for being appointed or elected to
the public office or that he/she has incurred disqualification to
continue in the said office, which satisfaction should be founded
on the indisputable facts, the High Court ought not to entertain the
prayer for issuance of a writ of quo warranto - Thus, the High
Court could not have issued a writ of quo warranto until the Income
and Caste Certificate issued in favour of the appellant, on the basis
of which she participated in the election for the post of Adhyaksha
and got elected, was to be declared void or invalidated by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee - Mere fact that the certificate was issued in a
short span of five days from the date of the application, per se,
does not lead to an inference that the required procedure has not
been followed and can be no basis to invalidate the certificate -
For a person possessing an Income and Caste Certificate issued by
the jurisdictional Authority and so long as it is valid and in force,
treating such a person as usurper of the public office and occupying
it without legal authority, cannot be accepted - Order passed by
the High Court set aside - Caste Verification Committee directed to
expedite the enquiry regarding validity of the Income and Caste
Certificate.
 [2018] 3 S.C.R. 137
137
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The post of Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat is a
public office in relation to which a writ of quo warranto can be
issued, if the post is occupied by a person who is not eligible to
be so appointed or incurs disqualification to continue to occupy
the post. Indeed, when a statutory remedy is provided for removal
of disqualified person from the public office who is allegedly
usurper of public office, the writ court would be ordinarily slow in
interfering, much less, issuing a writ of quo warranto. [Para 13]
[160-B-C]
1.2 The concurrent finding recorded by the 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. The Court also noted that
there was some overwriting in relation to the date. 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 could then contest
the election. The High Court also noted 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. 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
non-disclosure of material financial information. Finally, the High
Court concluded 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. Notably,
the High Court did not quash the caste certificate as being void
but left it open to the Caste Ve

## Text

_Characters 0–39,991 of 93,982. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39991 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
137
BHARATI REDDY
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1763 of 2018)
MARCH 06, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
 DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art. 226 - Writ of quo warranto -
Issuance of, when - On facts, appellant got elected to the post of
Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat - Writ petition before the High Court
alleging that the appellant played fraud on the government by
submitting a false affidavit for issuance of Income and Caste
Certificate - Prayer seeking issuance of writ of quo warranto
directing appellant to vacate the office of Adhyaksha, allowed by
the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court - As
regards the Income and Caste Certificate, directions to Caste
Verification Committee to proceed with the matter - On appeal, held:
Unless the Court is satisfied that the incumbent was not eligible at
all as per the statutory provisions for being appointed or elected to
the public office or that he/she has incurred disqualification to
continue in the said office, which satisfaction should be founded
on the indisputable facts, the High Court ought not to entertain the
prayer for issuance of a writ of quo warranto - Thus, the High
Court could not have issued a writ of quo warranto until the Income
and Caste Certificate issued in favour of the appellant, on the basis
of which she participated in the election for the post of Adhyaksha
and got elected, was to be declared void or invalidated by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee - Mere fact that the certificate was issued in a
short span of five days from the date of the application, per se,
does not lead to an inference that the required procedure has not
been followed and can be no basis to invalidate the certificate -
For a person possessing an Income and Caste Certificate issued by
the jurisdictional Authority and so long as it is valid and in force,
treating such a person as usurper of the public office and occupying
it without legal authority, cannot be accepted - Order passed by
the High Court set aside - Caste Verification Committee directed to
expedite the enquiry regarding validity of the Income and Caste
Certificate.
 [2018] 3 S.C.R. 137
137
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The post of Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat is a
public office in relation to which a writ of quo warranto can be
issued, if the post is occupied by a person who is not eligible to
be so appointed or incurs disqualification to continue to occupy
the post. Indeed, when a statutory remedy is provided for removal
of disqualified person from the public office who is allegedly
usurper of public office, the writ court would be ordinarily slow in
interfering, much less, issuing a writ of quo warranto. [Para 13]
[160-B-C]
1.2 The concurrent finding recorded by the 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. The Court also noted that
there was some overwriting in relation to the date. 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 could then contest
the election. The High Court also noted 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. 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
non-disclosure of material financial information. Finally, the High
Court concluded 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. Notably,
the High Court did not quash the caste certificate as being void
but left it open to the Caste Verification Committee to proceed
in accordance with law. [Para 16] [162-D-H; 163-A]
1.3 Interfering in exercise of writ jurisdiction is limited to
judicial review of the decision making process and not of the
decision itself. In the instant case, the final decision regarding
the validity of Income and Caste Certificate issued to the
appellant has been advisedly kept open, thereby the same, in law
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
139
and in fact, is still valid and in force. There is statutory
presumption that such caste certificate shall be valid until it is
cancelled by the Competent Authority. However, the only logic
that can be deduced from the contemplation done by the Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, is that the
process followed by the respondent No.5 for issuing the stated
certificate to the appellant is replete with serious doubt and,
therefore, is prima facie fraudulent. In other words, the
existence of the caste certificate or for that matter the fact that it
has been so issued by the respondent No.5, is not doubted or in
dispute. It is not a case of appellant relying on a non-existing or
officially non-issued caste certificate. Thus, enquiry will have to
be made about the circumstances warranting issuance of stated
certificate in a tearing hurry by the respondent No.5, allegedly to
favour the appellant. The other aspect is about the discrepancies
in the two affidavits submitted by the appellant and including the
suppression and non-disclosure of her truthful financial
information. [Paras 18-19] [163-D-H]
1.4 Indubitably, both these aspects would be the subject
matter of the enquiry before the Caste Verification Committee,
being intrinsically mixed with the question of validity of the stated
certificate. Appellant had offered explanation on both these
matters. Regarding the factum of mortal hurry allegedly displayed
by the respondent No.5 in issuing the caste certificate, she
contended that it was not issued on the same day as alleged but
after due enquiry. That is evinced from the original official file
produced before the Court. The explanation certainly would have
to be examined by the Caste Verification Committee, before
invalidating the caste certificate on the ground that proper
procedure was not followed. For the present, suffice it to
observe that the mere fact that the certificate was issued in a
short span of five days from the date of the application, per se,
does not lead to an inference that the required procedure has
not been followed. The mere fact that the caste certificate has
been issued within a short span of five days albeit after following
due procedure, can be no just basis to invalidate the certificate
by the Caste Verification Committee. The said Committee will
be obliged to record a clear finding of fact about the eligibility of
the appellant in reference to her financial status and income,
BHARATI REDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
keeping in mind the purport of Clause (ii) of the Note to
Notification dated 13th January, 1995. While considering that
matter, the Committee will have to make an enquiry as to whether
the appellant or her parent(s)/guardian(s) "is" an income tax
assessee /wealth tax assessee on the date of issuance of
the certificate. As regards this fact, Caste Verification Committee
would have to examine the correctness and efficacy of the two
affidavits in its proper perspective known to law. It is also
contended by the appellant that Clause (ii) of the Note posits two
aspects:- the first is that the incumbent or either of his/her
parents/guardian should not be an income tax or wealth tax
"assessee" at the relevant time. The expression used in this
clause, "is" an income tax assessee/wealth tax assessee, pre
supposes that it is in praesenti and for the relevant period.
Secondly, the incumbent must necessarily fall within the
expression "assessee" given in the concerned tax laws. That
means only a person, by whom any tax or any other sum of money
is payable under the Act for the concerned period and not otherwise. No material has been produced or is forthcoming that the
appellant, or for that matter, her husband, had paid any tax or are
liable to pay tax or a sum of money under the concerned tax
legislation, for the relevant period i.e. Financial Year 2015-16.
Absence of such evidence, the Income and Caste Certificate
issued to the appellant cannot be invalidated. Furthermore, the
income of her husband / spouse is not a relevant fact for issuance
of the Income and Caste Certificate. For, Clause (ii) excludes
benefit only if the incumbent or either of his/her parent/guardian
is an income tax assessee or wealth tax assessee. This provision
will have to be interpreted strictly, as in the case of provision for
any other disqualification. The appellant also asserts that there
is no discrepancy or for that matter suppression or
non-disclosure of financial information in the declarations
submitted by her. In any case, that would be a disputed question
of fact and per se concerning the issue of validity of Income and
Caste Certificate. [Para 20-21] [164-A-H; 165-A-F]
1.5 There is force in the submission of the appellant that
all these issues will be the subject matter during the enquiry into
the question of validity of the stated Income and Caste
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
141
Certificate, which is pending before the Caste Verification
Committee. Even the High Court was conscious of this position
and perhaps, therefore, did not quash or set aside the Income
and Caste Certificate as being void. A writ of quo warranto
cannot be issued on the basis of assumptions, inferences or
suspicion regarding the factum of fulfillment of eligibility criteria.
Being an extraordinary power, ordinarily such a writ ought to be
issued only on the basis of indisputable facts leading to a singular
conclusion that the incumbent was in fact or in law disqualified to
occupy the public office or has incurred disqualification to
continue to remain therein. Only whence such a person would
fall within the description of an usurper of public office without
legal authority. On the other hand, for a person possessing an
Income and Caste Certificate issued by the jurisdictional Authority
and so long as it is valid and in force, in fact and in law, treating
such a person as usurper of the public office and occupying it
without legal authority, cannot be countenanced. The High Court
had plainly erred in engaging itself in an enquiry into a prohibited
area which is already the subject matter of the proceedings
pending before the Caste Verification Committee, without
realizing that the observations made by it were inherently bound
to influence the Committee from taking a just and proper
decision in accordance with law irrespective of its observation to
decide without being influenced by its decision. [Para 22] [165G-H; 166-A-D]
1.6 Strikingly, neither the Single Judge nor the Division
Bench of the High Court thought it appropriate to quash and set
aside the Income and Caste Certificate as being void. If the High
Court was to allow that relief or other reliefs claimed by the writ
petitioners in entirety after a full-fledged enquiry, the
correctness of that approach could have been tested on a
different scale. It should not be understood to have stated that
such a course was open to the High Court. The High Court
stopped short of concluding that the Income and Caste
Certificate issued to the appellant is void. It merely expressed a
prima facie opinion that the process adopted by the respondent
No.5 to issue the Income and Caste Certificate to the appellant
created a serious doubt. At best, it observed that the appellant
was instrumental in playing fraud upon the jurisdictional
BHARATI REDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
Authority and/or the said Authority colluded with the appellant,
by surreptitiously issuing the Income and Caste Certificate to
the appellant. But, finally, it has left the question regarding the
validity of the certificate open to be decided by the Caste
Verification Committee, in the pending proceedings, dealing with
the factum of validity of the certificate issued to the appellant.
Having said this, the High Court could not have issued a writ of
quo warranto. That writ could be issued only if the Income and
Caste Certificate was held to be void or after it was invalidated
by the Competent Authority. [Paras 23- 24] [166-E-H; 167-A-B]
1.7 What the writ petitioners (respondents 6 to 9) had
questioned was the correctness of the declarations submitted by
the appellant about her financial status and income which,
according to them was beyond the prescribed limit and
disentitled the appellant to get the Income cum Caste Certificate.
The firm stand taken by the appellant is that there was no
discrepancy between the two declarations muchless indicative of
excess income of the appellant at the relevant time. There is no
little of material forthcoming to show that in fact, the appellant or
her parents/guardians had paid income tax or wealth tax during
the relevant Financial Year 2015-16. That indeed could have
disentitled the appellant from getting an Income and Caste
Certificate. This submission of the appellant is founded on the
setting in which Clause (ii) of the Note has been placed and is
attracted only to an income tax assessee/wealth tax assessee as
per the relevant taxation laws during the current period. An
assessee is a person who pays taxes or is liable to pay tax or any
other sum of money payable by him/her. The argument is that the
fact that the appellant has been issued PAN number or has filed
tax return and paid tax in the past will be of no consequence and
does not impair or impinge upon the eligibility of the appellant to
get an Income and Caste Certificate for the relevant period in
any manner. These are matters to be considered by the Caste
Verification Committee and only if rejected, the caste certificate
in question could be invalidated. Until a final decision is taken by
the Caste Verification Committee, in law, it will have to be
presumed that subject certificate is valid and in force in view of
the statutory provision making it explicit to that effect.
[Para 28] [169-E-G; 170-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
143
1.8 Unless the Court is satisfied that the incumbent was
not eligible at all as per the statutory provisions for being
appointed or elected to the public office or that he/she has
incurred disqualification to continue in the said office, which
satisfaction should be founded on the indisputable facts, the High
Court ought not to entertain the prayer for issuance of a writ of
quo warranto. [Para 34] [174-E]
1.9 The High Court had justly negatived the argument of
the appellant which was founded on the interim relief granted by
the High Court in the stated writ petition on the ground that the
same cannot validate an action which was illegal so as to alter the
eligibility criteria for contesting the election of Adhyaksha. The
High Court is free to deal with that writ petition on its own
merits in accordance with law. [Para 35] [175-E-F]
1.10 This, however, would make no difference to the
conclusion which must be reached in this case that the High Court
could not have issued a writ of quo warranto until the Income and
Caste Certificate issued in favour of the appellant, on the basis
of which she participated in the election for the post of Adhyaksha
and got elected, was to be declared void or invalidated by the
Caste Scrutiny Committee. [Para 36] [175-G-H]
1.11 In a matter of this nature, the High Court, having kept
open the issue regarding the validity of the Income and Caste
Certificate to be decided by the jurisdictional Caste Verification
Committee and finding no legal basis to declare the certificate as
void ab initio or choosing to do so, ought to have instead
directed the Caste Verification Committee to expedite the
enquiry and conclude the same in a time bound manner. The
course adopted by the High Court has only prolonged the
consideration of that issue by the competent authority and
embroiled the parties in avoidable proceedings. [Para 37] [176A-B]
1.12 The decisions of the Single Judge and the Division
Bench of the High Court impugned in the present appeal are set
aside. The writ petition filed by the respondents 6 to 9 is
disposed of only by directing the Caste Verification Committee
to expedite the enquiry regarding the validity of the Income and
Caste Certificate issued to the appellant by respondent no.5 and
BHARATI REDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
conclude the same preferably within the stipulated period. [Para
38] [176-C-D]
Kurapati Maria Das v.. Ambedkar Seva Samajan
[2009] 6 SCR 498 : [2009] 7 SCC 387 - relied on.
K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) and Others v. Union of India
and Another [2010] 6 SCR 972 : (2010) 7 SCC 202
and Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India
(1992) 3 Suppl. SCC 210 ; The University of Mysore
and Another v.. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another
[1964] 4 SCR 575 ; Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v.. State
of Gujarat. [1974] 3 SCR 427 : (1974) 2 SCC 121;
K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan 1999 AIR 1723 :
[1999] 2 SCR 857 : (1999) 4 SCC 526 ; Arun Singh
alias Arun Kr. Singh v.. State of Bihar and Others
[2006] 2 SCR 1058 : (2006) 9 SCC 375 ; B.R. Kapur
v.. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR
191 : (2001) 7 SCC 231 ; High Court of Gujarat and
Anr. v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and Ors.
[2003] 2 SCR 799 : (2003) 4 SCC 712 ; Mor Modern
Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commr. & Secy.
To Government of Haryana [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 87 :
(2002) 6 SCC 269 ; R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India
[1993] 3 SCR 802 : (1993) 4) SCC 119 ; Chairman
and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and
Others v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others
(2017) 8 SCC 670 : Madhuri Patil Vs. Commr., Tribal
Development [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 50 : (1994) 6 SCC
241; Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors.
[2012] 10 SCR 883 : (2013) 1 SCC 501 ; B. Srinivasa
Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and
Drainage Board Employees Asson. [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR
462 : (2006) 11 SCC 731 ; and Hari Bansh Lal v..
Sahodar Prasad Mahto [2010] 10 SCR 561 : (2010) 9
SCC 655 ; Centre for PIL v.. Union of India [2011] 4
SCR 445 : (2011) 4 SCC 1 - referred to.
Permanent Edn., at p. 647 ; Halsbury's Laws of England,
4th Edn., Reissue Vol. I, p. 368, para 265 - referred
to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145
Case Law Reference
[2010] 6 SCR 972
referred to
Para 8
(1992) 3 Suppl. SCC 210
referred to
Para 8
[1964] 4 SCR 575
referred to
Para 13
[1974] 3 SCR 427
referred to
Para 25
[1999] 2 SCR 857
referred to
Para 26
[2009] 6 SCR 498
relied on
Para 28
[2006] 2 SCR 1058
referred to
Para 29
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 191
referred to
Para 30
[2003] 2 SCR 799
referred to
Para 31
[2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 87
referred to
Para 31
[1993] 3 SCR 802
referred to
Para 31
(2017) 8 SCC 670
referred to
Para 32
[1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 50
referred to
Para 32
[2012] 10 SCR 883
referred to
Para 33
[2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 462
referred to
Para 33
[2010] 10 SCR 561
referred to
Para 33
[2011] 4 SCR 445
referred to
Para 33
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1763
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2017 of the High Court
of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in W. A. No. 5872 of 2017 (LB-RES).
C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv, H. Chandra Sekhar, Ms. Rekha Patil,
Ms. Rohini Musa, Abhishek Gupta, Zafar Inayat, Apoorv Tripathi, Advs
for the Appellant.
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, S. M. Chander Shekhar, Sr. Advs, S. B.
Mahapathi, Sharanagouda Patil, Giris M. N., Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda
(for M/s. S-legal Associates), Advs for the Respondents.
BHARATI REDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. 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.
2. Briefly stated, pursuant to notification dated 04.12.2015,
elections were held and the appellant was elected on 28.03.2016 as a
member of the Zilla Panchayat from 13-Badanahatti Constituency, Ballari
District, Karnataka which was reserved for General (Women) Category.
Later, the State Government published a notification on 15.04.2016
declaring the reservation for the post of Adhyaksha and Upa-Adhyaksha
of Zilla Panchayats in the State. In Ballari Zilla Panchayat, the post of
Adhyaksha was reserved for the category of Backward Caste-B
(Women). After the said notification, since the appellant intended to
contest 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 nomination form for the election to the
post of Adhayaksha. That certificate was issued by the Tahshildar on
26.04.2016 on the basis of which the appellant contested the election
held on 29.04.2016 and was declared elected. As required in terms of
the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Act, 1990 and the
Rules framed thereunder, the Income and Caste Certificate has been
forwarded to the District Caste Verification Committee Ballari. The
process of verification thereof is still in progress.
3. According to the appellant, at the behest of the unsuccessful
candidates who could not 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. 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 contested the election for the post of Adhyaksha Zilla
Panchayat and got elected to the said post, to which she was otherwise
not entitled to or qualified for. The allegation about the nature of fraud
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
147
committed by the appellant can be discerned from the assertions made
in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition, which read thus:
"6. 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 community-B Category obtained from the
5th Respondent. 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. No. 36A in
Yarrangaligi village. Further she also declared that her family
income is not more than Rs.3,50,000/- per annum from all other
sources and that she and her husband are not assessed to Income
Tax and Commercial Tax. 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 contesting for the member of Bellary
Zilla Panchayat General Elections. It is further submitted that the
6th Respondent in her affidavit dated 06.02.2016 declared that
she is getting rent of Rs.1,40,000/- per annum and her husband
getting 4,80,000/- per annum, which details are found in paragraph
4-A. This itself shows that her family income from one source
only is more than 3,50,000/- as declared in the affidavit dated
26.04.2016 filed before the 5th Respondent for issuance of Caste
and Income Certificate. That apart she has also declared in the
said affidavit dated 26.04.2016 that she and her husband are not
assessed to the Income Tax and Commercial Tax, which are also
contrary to the declaration made in the affidavit dated 06.02.2016
filed before 2nd Respondent that she has been assessed to Income
Tax and has paid Income Tax, the said details are stated in
paragraph 5 of the said affidavit. It is also reliably learnt that the
husband of the 6th Respondent is Class-I contractor and is having
more than income of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- per annum and is assessed
to Income Tax and Commercial Taxes. True copies 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.
BHARATI REDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
7. It is further submitted that in the proceedings held on
29.04.2016 under the Chairmanship of Regional
Commissioner, Kalburgi Division, Kalburgi, the 6th
Respondent was successful in getting elected as Adhyaksha
under the Category-Backward Community-B based on the
above said false Caste and Income Certificate which was
issued by the 5th Respondent on the same day of application
without any proper enquiry as required under the law. A
true copy of the said proceedings dated 29.04.2016 is produced
herewith as Annexure-H."
 (emphasis supplied)
On the basis of these allegations, the respondent Nos.6 to 9 prayed
for the following reliefs in the said writ petition:
 "PRAYER
Wherefore, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
a. Issue a writ of Quo Warranto directing the 6th Respondent to
vacate the office of the Adhyaksha, Zilla Panchayat, Bellary.
b. set aside the proceedings dated 29.04.2016 bearing No. SUM./
KAM/Pra HaGu/chunavana/05/2016-17 declaring the 6th Respondent as Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat, Bellary vide Annexure-H.
c. consequently quash the caste certificate issued to the 6th
Respondent vide order dated 26-04-2016 in application No.
01/16-17 issued by the 5th Respondent vide Annexure-G.
d. pass such other or further orders or directions as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice".
 (emphasis supplied)
4. This writ petition was contested by the appellant inter alia on
the ground that the same was not maintainable in view of the bar
contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Further, the writ
petitioners were only voters and therefore, had no locus to challenge the
election of the appellant as Adhyaksha, which was an indirect election.
Rule 7 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Rules explicitly envisages that
only a member of the Panchayat may challenge the validity of the
election of Adhyaksha and Upa-Adhyaksha. It was also pointed out that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
149
the writ petition filed by the said respondents was a politically motivated
petition and filed at the behest of unsuccessful candidates who could not
prevent the appellant from getting elected as Adhyaksha. As regards
the allegations in the writ petition that the appellant had made false
declarations and filed incorrect affidavits, the appellant contended that
the Income and Caste Certificate was issued in favour of the appellant
by the competent authority after completing all the formalities and
procedure. So long as the said certificate was valid and in force,
issuance of writ of quo warranto was misplaced. For, there is legal
presumption about the validity of the said certificate in terms of Rules 3C of the Rules of 1992 framed under the 1990 Act. The said Rule makes
it amply clear that the certificate would remain valid until it is cancelled
by the jurisdictional Caste Verification Committee. 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. Such allegation was based on far-fetched logic and
untenable assumptions. The affidavit dated 06.02.2016 submitted along
with the nomination form filed for contesting elections from 13Badanahatti Constituency was in reference to the factual position stated
therein. 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 contesting the election of Adhyaksha at the
relevant time, in respect of post reserved for "B" Category (Women)
Backward Caste. In other words, both the affidavits and the information
disclosed therein were truthful, accurate and contextual, as noted in the
respective affidavit. 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, could not give rise
to a presupposition, inference or assumption that the same was issued
without necessary and proper enquiry. On the other hand, there is legal
presumption that the same was valid, having been issued by the
jurisdictional Tahshildar competent in that regard. The circumstances,
of the time of issue of E-stamps at about 5:27 P.M. or the date of
affidavit being 26.04.2016, cannot be a just basis to assume that the
certificate was fraudulent, in the face of the statutory provision making
it explicit that it would be valid until cancelled by the Caste Verification
Committee. Thus, the circumstances relied upon by the writ petitioners
BHARATI REDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
were neither relevant nor sufficient to draw any inference on fact, much
less legal inference, so as to conclude that the certificate was
fraudulently issued. The fact that the appellant belongs to "Kapu Caste",
which is notified 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. It is not
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. It was pointed out by the appellant that the writ of quo
warranto is not an ordinary power to be exercised by the High Court
and moreso, in the matter involving disputed questions of fact. The High
Court may be justified in issuing such a writ only if it is indisputable that
the elected public representative was ineligible or disqualified to contest
the election or had incurred disqualification at a later point of time. In
either case, such a person cannot justify holding on to the public post
such as that of Adhyaksha. That situation will arise only if the Caste
Verification Committee was to invalidate and cancel the Income and
Caste Certificate issued in favour of the appellant and not otherwise.
On these contentions, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
5. 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 commended to the learned Single Judge,
who dismissed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 21.10.2016.
6. 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. The Division Bench reversed the judgment of
the learned Single Judge and allowed the writ appeal vide judgment and
order dated 05.06.2016. It remanded the matter to the learned Single
Judge for fresh decision.
7. The appellant therefore, approached this Court by way of
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17059 of 2017 (converted 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 contention that the only remedy to challenge
the election of the appellant would be an election petition, was reiterated.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
151
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. In
such proceedings, it is open to the High Court to undertake judicial
review of the subject matter. In paragraph 13 of its judgment, this Court
observed thus:
"13. It is thus clear that power of judicial review under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution is an essential feature of the Constitution
which can neither be tinkered with nor eroded. Even the
Constitution cannot be amended to erode the basic structure of
the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition
filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 9 under Article 226 of the Constitution
is not maintainable. However, it is left to the discretion of the
court exercising the power under Articles 226/227 to entertain
the writ petition."
Again in paragraph 15, the Court observed thus:
"15. As noticed above, though respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are the
voters are not the members of the Zilla Panchayat. They are
aggrieved by the election of the appellant to the office of the
Adhyaksha. They cannot challenge the election of the appellant
to the office of Adhyaksha by filing an election petition as they
are not the members of the Zilla Panchayat in question. In our
view, a voter of the Zilla Panchayat who is not a member cannot
be denied an opportunity to challenge the election to the office of
Adhyaksha under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. Therefore,
we hold that the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 9
before the High Court is maintainable."
After this decision, the preliminary objections regarding the
maintainability of writ petition stood concluded. An attempt was made
by the appellant to question the correctness of the view expressed by
this Court in the aforesaid decision. Concededly, even if the arguments
of the appellant may appear to be attractive, it cannot be entertained in
relation to the decision inter partes.
BHARATI REDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
8. Be that as it may, in light of the view expressed by this Court,
the parties were relegated before the learned Single Judge of the High
Court. 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 note appended to the
notification dated 13.01.1995. That notification had been issued by the
State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 2(2)
of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, for classifying and notifying
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. The note predicates that no person
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). 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. Union of India and Another1
and Indra Sawhney and Others Vs. Union of India2. The High Court
being prima facie convinced with the said contention granted interim
stay to the said stipulation (Clause ii) in the notification dated 13.01.1995.
9. 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 controversy for grant of reliefs prayed in
the writ petition including for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. The
learned Single Judge, after examining the rival contentions and after
taking note of the original documents forming part of the original file
produced by the Government advocate, opined vide judgment and order
dated 21.09.2017 as under:
"11. Learned AGA appearing for respondents 1,3 to 5 filed
following documents pertaining to issuance of caste and income
certificate to respondent No. 6-Smt. Bharati Reddy w/o
Sri Thimmareddy for perusal of this Court.
1. Application dated 22.04.2016 for issue of caste and income
certificate (Xerox copy).
1(2010) 7 SCC 202
2(1992) Supp (3) SCC 210
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
153
2. Notice dated 23.04.2016 issued by the Revenue Inspector.
3. Report of the Revenue Inspector dated 26.04.2016 bearing
No. Sam.Kam.Jaa and Aa Zi. Pam.Chu/01/16-17 dated
26.04.2016.
4. Mahazar
5. Statement
6. Affidavit of the applicant sworn before the Advocate Notary
7. Applicant's identity card (Xeroxcopy)
8. Applicant's voter identity card (Xerox copy)
9. Transfer Certificate (certified copy)
10. Study Certificate (certified copy)
11.Original Caste and Income Certificate bearing
No. Sam.Kam.01/06-07 dated 26.04.2016.
12. Form No. 24 regarding applicant's land holding.
12. On perusal of the documents it is seen that on 22.04.2016 the
respondent No. 6 has filed application for issue of caste and
income certificate; on 23.04.2016 the jurisdictional Revenue
Inspector has issued notice to respondent No. 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 conducted mahazar
along with the Village Accountant and opined that there is no
objection for issue of caste certificate to the petitioner in
Backward Caste II(B); statement of Smt. C. Bharathi w/o V.C.
Thimma Reddy before the Revenue Inspector; affidavit of
Smt. C. Bharathi w/o V.C. Thimma Reddy sworn before the
Advocate Notary, Ballari Tq. Rev. Area on 26.04.2016; Xerox
copy of the original voters' list of the year 2015; Xerox copy of
the voter's identity card; certified copy of the transfer certificate;
certified copy of the study certificate and also the original
certificate issued by the Special Tahasildar, Kurugodu, declaring
the caste of the respondent No. 6 as Kapu which comes under
Backward Category 'B' on 26.04.2016 so also the original of Form
No. 24 regarding holding of land by the respondent No. 6.
BHARATI REDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
13. The entire process of issuance of caste certificate is
concluded 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 contended by the learned counsel
for respondent No.6. However, on perusal of the affidavit filed
by the respondent No. 6 before the Notary it is seen that
the e-stamp paper is purchased at 5.27 PM on 26.04.2016
and after purchase affidavit was sworn before the Notary
and on that day itself the caste certificate is issued. It is
also seen that the date 26.04.2016 is over-written. This
creates a serious doubt about the process of issuance of
caste certificate by the respondent No.5.
14. The respondent No. 5 being a responsible officer of the
Revenue Department has issued the caste certificate in a
mortal hurry. The respondent No.