PRABHUDEV MALLIKARJUNAIAH versus RAMACHANDRA VEERAPPA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 23-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
PRABHUDEV MALLIKARJUNAIAH 
A 
v. 
RAMACHANDRA VEERAPPA AND ANR. 
APRIL 23, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950/Representation of the People Act, 1951-Art, 
341/S. 116-B-Election in constituencies reserved for SC/ST-Presidential 
Notiftcation-'-Courts cannot give any declaration that the status with 
synonimous names of castes claimed by the pmty is confirmable to the names C 
specified in the Notification-Assistant Municipal Commissioner issuing 
Caste Certificate-He has no jurisdiction to issue the certificate and hence 
cannot be validly acted upon. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4247 of 
1995. . 
]) 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.94 of the Karnataka High 
Court in E.P. No. 3 of 1991. 
N.D.B. Raju and G. Prabhakar for the Appellant,, 
P. Mahale and S.N. Bhat (NP) for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
E 
This appeal under Section 116-B of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 (for short, the 'Act') arise; from the judgment of the High Court F 
of Karnataka made on October 27, 1994 in Election Petition No. 3/1991. 
The appellant had tiled his nomination as a Scheduled Caste candidate to 
the Bidar-1 (SC) Parliamentary Con>titucncy for the 9th Lok Sabha on 
April 26, 1991. It was rejected by the Returning Officer by his proceedings 
dated April 27, 1991 finding that he is a Verrashive Jangamma and that, G 
therefore, he i' not a Beda Jangamma, which is item 19 of the Presidential 
Notification in relation to the State of Karnataka. He filed the election 
petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by the aforesaid judgment. 
Thus this appeal. 
Shri N.D.B. Raju, learned counsel for the appellan~ contended that H 
673 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
the appellant was Beda Jangamma. His father was the President of Beda 
J angamma Association. He had the benefit of contesting the elections as a 
member of Beda J angamma. The finding of the Court that he is not Beda 
Jangamma is not correct. He contends that among the Lingayaths, there 
are various sub-castes. Thought, as a fact, it was found that the appellant's 
B 
sub-caste is Veerashiva, in fact, if it is only a Beda Jangamma. His father 
used to adopt begging which the Beda Jangamma caste would do. Conse-
quently, a appellant cannot be denied of the status as a Beda Jangamma. 
He also sought to place strong reliance on the judgment of the civil Court, 
Ex.P-14, in Misc. No 75 of 1987, made on February 26, 1988 in which the 
appellant wherein was held to be Bed a J angamma and that, therefore, the 
C 
findings of the High Court are incorrect. Having considered the evidence, 
we find that there is no force in the contention. 
It is seen that under Article 34(1) of the Constitution, the Presiden-
tial Notification is conclusive subject to the amendment under clause (2) 
D of Article 341. In 1976, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) 
Act had been made. Admittedly, under item No. 19, in relation to the State 
of Karnataka, Beda Jangamma or Budaga Jangamma are declared as 
Scheduled Castes. As a fact, the finding recorded by the High Court is that 
the appellant belongs to Veerashiva Lingayath Community and he is a 
Jangamma. The question, therefore, is : whether Veerashiva Lingayath 
E 
would be considered to be a Scheduled Caste (Beda Jangamma) within the 
notification issued by the President ? It is settled law that the courts cannot 
give any declaration that the status with synonimous names of castes 
claimed by the party is conformable to the names specified in the Presiden-
tial Notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution. 
F 
The finding recorded by the High Court after exhaustive considera-
tion of evidence including the .iudgment of the Civil Court on which strong 
reliance was placed, is that the appellant is a Veerashiva Lingayath Jan-
gamma and that, therefore, he cannot be considered to be a Beda Jangam-
ma or Budaga Jangamma. It is true that the appellant has placed reliance 
G on the Census Report prepared by the Census Department of the State of 
Karnataka and also the Notification issued by the Legislative Department. 
That evidence also was considered and for valid and diverse reasons, with 
which we agree, the same was rightly rejected. 
H 
The Civil Court went into the status of the appellant in the Election 
P. MALLIKARJUNAIAH v. R. VEERAPPA 
675 
Petition relating to Zilla Paris

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.