K.G.KUMARASWAMY Vs. B.T.THIMMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal is filed assailing the order dtd. 30/5/2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17975/2010.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

(3.) Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the jurisdictional Tahsildar had issued a caste certificate in favour of the appellant stating that he belongs to Bhovi community which falls under Scheduled Caste. The said caste certificate was challenged by respondent no.1 herein before this Court in W.P.No.6366/2008 and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to avail the alternative remedy of appeal as provided under the statute. Respondent no.1, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Sec. 4-B of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe & Other Backward Caste (Reservation of Appointments, etc.,) Act, 1990 (for short, 'the Act') and the Appellate Authority vide its order dtd. 24/3/2009 set aside the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant and the matter was remitted to the Tahsildar for holding fresh enquiry. This order was questioned by the appellant herein in W.P.No.8171/2009 and this Court had disposed of the said writ petition without interfering with the orders passed by the Appellate Authority with an observation that the Tahsildar shall decide the entire issue independently without being influenced by the observations made by the Appellate Authority in its orders. The Tahsildar, thereafter, held a fresh enquiry and passed an order dtd. 31/3/2010 declaring that the appellant belongs to Bhovi community. The said order was challenged by respondent no.1 before this Court in W.P.No.17975/2010 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order impugned and the matter was remitted back to the Tahsildar once again for fresh enquiry. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent no.3 in the writ petition has preferred this appeal.