Prabhakar vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 138396/2020 decided on 10 November 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348668/1/WP138396-20-10-11-2020.pdf
Case details: – Respondent 4 contested and won the election to the office of Board of Management of a Co-operative Credit Society governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. He submitted a caste certificate claiming to be ‘scheduled caste’. Writ Petition was filed seeking a writ of quo-warranto against him.
5. In addition to reiterating the various grounds urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for by him in the petition, particularly when respondent No.4 is guilty of fraud in that he produced a fake caste certificate which was not at all issued by the Tahsildar as can be seen from the material on record. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the following decisions:-University of Mysore vs. C.D.Govinda Rao – AIR 1965 SC 491; P.M.Parameshwara Murthy vs. State of Karnataka – W.P.No.4340/2012 dated 21.11.2012, Chairman & M.D., FCI vs. Jagadish Balaram Bahira – AIR 2017 SC 3271, Bharathi Reddy vs. State of Karnataka – W.A.No.5872/2017 c/w W.A.No.100657/2017 dated 04.12.2017, Bharathi Reddy vs. State of Karnataka – (2018) 6 SCC 162.
10.the genesis/basis for the respondent No.4 to file nomination, contest elections and get elected under the scheduled caste category was the alleged caste certificate which is clearly a fake certificate that was not issued by the Tahsildar. It is therefore clear that the entire election process commencing from filing of nomination and culminating in the election of respondent No.4 on the basis of a fake caste certificate is vitiated on account of the same being illegal and contrary to statutory provisions and Rules of procedure and consequently, availability of the remedy under Section 70 of the Act is not a bar for the present petition seeking quashing of the election results and for issuance a writ of quo warranto against the respondents.
14. The power of this Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is now well settled. In C.D.Govindra Rao’s case supra, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, while quoting Halsbury’s Laws of England held as under:- “An information in the nature of a quo warranto took the place of the obsolate writ of quo warranto which lay against a person who claimed or usurped an office, franchise, or liberty, to enquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order that the right to the office or franchise might be determined.”
15. It follows there from that respondent No.4 is holding the post of an elected director of the Society without any legal authority and he is guilty of usurpation of the said post. Consequently, in view of the fact that the post held by the respondent No.4 is a public office and that the respondent No.4 got elected to the post based on a fake caste certificate which was never issued by the Tahsildar and that respondent No.4 is holding the post without any legal authority coupled with the fact that he is not able to show cause as to how and under which authority of law he is holding the post, I am of the considered opinion that as a consequence of setting aside the election results at Annexure H, it is just and proper to issue a writ of Quo Warranto against respondent No.4 directing him to be ousted from the post of elected director of respondent 3 society.
Compiled by Harsh Desai and S. Basavaraj, Advocates for Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 