Bharati Reddy vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.

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 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, keeping in mind the purport of Clause (ii) of the Note to Notification dated 13 th 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 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 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]

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 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.