M.S. RANE, J. :---The petitioner in this petition has questioned the legality and validity of the election of the respondent herein to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Palghar, district Thane Constituency No. 62 held on 12-2-1995 the result of which was declared after counting on 12-3-1995 in which the respondent was declared as elected having got highest number of votes being 55,399 votes as against 33,250 secured by the petitioner. In all there were five contesting candidates who secured votes less than the petitioner herein. Exhibit 'C' to the petition is the copy of the result as declared by the Returning Officer of the said constituency. The said Palghar constituency is a reserved constituency specifically for the members belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. According to the petitioner he belongs to the schedule tribe viz. Hindu Malhar Koli.

2. The petitioner has challenged the election of the respondent principally on the ground that she does not belong to the Schedule Tribe for which the said Constituency No. 62 was reserved and therefore was not eligible and qualified candidate for the said election from the said constituency. According to the petitioner the respondent belongs to Hindu Maratha caste. The petitioner makes a reference to the objection raised to the candidature of the respondent before the Returning Officer on 18-1-1995 questioning the candidature of the respondent and rejection of the objection raised by one Ramakant Ramchandra by the Returning Officer by his order dated 18-1-1995. The objection and order of the Returning Officer forms part of Exhibits A and B to the petition. The petitioner contends that the rejection of the objection by the Returning Officer was improper and illegal.

3. To substantiate the contention of the petitioner that the respondent does not belong to schedule tribe petitioner has made reference to the caste certificate issued to the respondent and school leaving certificates of the respondent and same of her other relatives like brothers, cousins. Copy of the school leaving certificate of the respondent has been annexed as Ex. D to the petition which shows the religion and caste of the respondent as Hindu Maratha. Further it is stated that the respondent had married to one Manohar Nimkar who is a Brahmin by caste.

4. Referring to and relying upon the material to which reference has been made in the petition the petitioner avers that the respondent was not qualified to contest the said election which exclusively remained reserved for the members belonging to schedule tribe and the rejection of the objection to her nomination by the Returning Officer was illegal. Challenge is made needless to say as provided under section 100 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' for brevity sake). The petitioner has inter alia sought relief that the election of the respondent to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Palghar constituency be declared as null and void and the same be quashed and set aside and fresh election be ordered to be held in the said constituency.

5. Upon filing of the petition the respondent was served with the process therein and in response thereto she filed a written statement on 24-10-1995. Written statement has been declared on 22-8-1995. The respondent has categorically denied the contention of the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent that she belongs to the Schedule Tribe. She has relied upon the caste certificate issued to her by the Executive Magistrate, Palghar, district Thane which certificate shows that the respondent belonged to the Schedule Tribe. She has also made reference to the school leaving certificates of her close relatives such as brothers, sisters and cousins which make mention of their caste as belonging to the Schedule Tribe. She asserts that the caste certificate has been issued to her by the concerned authority under the statute viz. Executive Magistrate on consideration of the r