The judgment emphasized the importance of proving the eligibility of candidates in elections, especially in cases involving caste certificates and scheduled castes.

The petitioner and 26 others including the 1st respondent herein contested from the Closebern constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste, of the Kadagadalu Gram Panchayath in the election held on 27.2.2005 whence the petitioner was declared elected having secured the highest number of votes while the 1st respondent secured the second highest number. The 1st respondent while calling in question the said declaration sought to be declared as the duly elected candidate, by filing Election Petition No.1/2005 before the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Madikeri, invoking the provisions of the Karnataka panchayath Raj Act, 1993, for short the Act. The specific case of the election petitioner was that the declared candidate did not belong to Scheduled Caste and had, by furnishing a false caste certificate contested the election, though did belong to ‘Bharathiya Hindu Malayali’ caste, not a declared scheduled caste. That petition was opposed by the declared candidate arraigned as the 2nd respondent contending that being an unmarried woman belongs to “Pulayan” caste, a recognized scheduled caste, supported by a certificate dated 9.12.1997 Ex.R-1 issued by the Tahsildar of the Hosadurga of Kasargodu District, Kerala State. Although the other unsuccessful candidates in the said elections were arraigned as party respondents-3 to 26 in the election petition, nevertheless none of them opposed the petition by filing statement of objections, while were placed exparte. Before the Election Tribunal, the election petitioner was examined as PW- 1 and two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3, marked 11 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-11, as also the evidence of CW-1 whence documents were marked as Ex.C-1 and C2. For the respondents, four witnesses were examined as RW1 to RW-4 and five documents were marked as Ex.R1 to R-5. The Election Tribunal having regard to the material on record, the evidence both oral and documentary held that the petitioner belongs to Bharathiya Hindu Malayali caste, not a notified scheduled caste and that the caste certificate enclosed to the nomination form for contesting the election. Certifying that she belongs to a Schedule Caste, was false and accordingly, declared the election of the returned candidate as void, and as the petitioner had secured the second highest number of votes in the election was declared to have been duly elected to the membership of Kadagadalu Gram Panchayath from Closebern Reserved Constituency, by order dated 12th December, 2006 Annexure A. Hence, this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner advances the following contentions –

(1) that the caste certificate dated 9.12.1997 Ex.R-1 discloses that the petitioner belongs to “Pulayan” caste, a recognized scheduled caste, and that Ex.P-8 caste certificate issued by PW-3 Tahsildar, too certifies her caste as ‘Holeya’ or ‘Harijan’. According to the learned counsel, rejection of the said two documents, as false is perverse and unsustainable;

(2) the rejection of the oral testimony of RW-3 and RW-4 the brother and maternal uncle respectively, of the declared candidate supported the case of the petitioner that she belong to “Pulayan” caste, a declared scheduled caste coupled with documentary evidence such as cumulative record, caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Ex.R-4 and R-5 is without legal basis, and perverse;

(3) the Election Tribunal fell in error in declaring the election petitioner as duly elected to the membership of the Kadagadalu Gram Panchayath from Closebern Reserved Constituency, supported by the decision of a Division Bench of this court in T.S Patil vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others reported in ILR 2007 Kar.491.

Though respondents are served, are un-represented.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question for decision making is, “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and award impugned is, legal and proper?”

4. Before the Election Tribunal, the election pet