SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 850

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Arun R. Pedneker, J.
Narsingrao s/o. Nivruttirao Udgirkar - Petitioner
Versus
Shivaji s/o. Bandappa Kalge and ors. - Respondents
Election Petition No. 3 Of 2024, Election Petition No. 6 Of 2024
Decided On : 10-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Dr. Jayshree Patil, Advocate, Mr. Uttam Laxmanrao Telgaonkar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The Caste Scrutiny Committee's determination of caste validity is exclusive and cannot be challenged in election petitions without clear evidence of fraud or error.

Headnote:

Election - Qualification - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 4(a), 33(2), 100(1)(a), 100(1)(d)(i) - The court emphasized the exclusive jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee in determining caste validity, highlighting the necessity of proper documentation and the inability of civil courts to intervene in caste status determinations.

Fact of the Case:

Two election petitions challenged the election of a candidate on grounds of improper caste certification, alleging he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste category as claimed. The petitions presented various documents to support their claims of fraudulent caste certificate acquisition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the election petitions lacked sufficient material facts to challenge the validity of the caste certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. The petitions were dismissed for failing to establish a cause of action.

Issues: Whether the election petitions provided sufficient material facts to challenge the caste status of the returned candidate and whether the court could intervene in the validity of the caste certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has exclusive jurisdiction to determine caste validity, and election petitions must clearly plead how such determinations are vitiated by fraud or error. Mere allegations without substantial evidence are insufficient.

Result: The election petitions are dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Arun R. Pedneker, J.

1. Election Petition Nos. 3 of 2024 and 6 of 2024 are filed, challenging the election of respondent No. 1 – Shivaji Bandappa Kalge, the returned candidate from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency, State of Maharashtra for the election held on 7.5.2024 on the ground of qualification or disqualification of the returned candidate by contending that the returned candidate does not belong to the ‘Mala Jangam’ Scheduled Caste category as declared by him in his nomination papers. Both the petitions are taken up for hearing jointly in view of the provisions of section 86 (3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the R.P. Act’ for short).

2. In Election Petition No. 3/2024, the petitioner seeks declaration that on the date of election, the returned candidate/respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat in the House of People from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste member or he was not having requisite qualification within the meaning of Section 4 (a) of the R.P. Act, to be chosen to fill the seat in the House of People from 41- Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency. The petitioner also seeks declaration that the election of respondent No.1/returned candidate has been materially affected by the acceptance of his nomination along with his caste certificate, validity certificate, affidavit, declaration and nomination by the returning officer and as such, be declared void. Thus, the petitioner challenges election of respondent No. 1/returned candidate on the grounds mentioned in section 100 (1)(a), 100 (1) (d) (i) & (iv) r/w. section 4 (a) of the R.P. Act.

3. It is the case of the petitioner in Election Petition No. 3/2024 that the respondent No. 1 belongs to Hindu Jangam caste, at Sr. No. 58, which is recognised as Other Backward Class under the Maharashtra Government Resolution Nos. (1) 1096/PK-48/MVK-5 dated 03.06.1986, (2) CBC 1098/PK-185/OBC-5 dated 1.1.2001 and (3) CBC-14/2001/PK-232/MVK-5 dated 1.6.2004. Respondent No. 1 is an elector for 41 Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency in Maharashtra State and his name is entered at Sr. No. 973, in Part No. 157 of the elector roll for 238 – Nilanga Assembly Constituency, comprised within 41 Latur Parliamentary Constituency in Maharashtra State. It is further case of the petitioner that petitioner and other respondent Nos. 5 to 30 have contested the election to the House of People from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency in Maharashtra State in which they all have lost the same whereas the respondent No. 1 has won the election by margin of 61881 votes. Respondent No. 1 belongs to the Indian National Congress party whereas petitioner belongs to Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi.

4. To substantiate the case, the petitioner has relied on following documents :-

    (a) General Register of Zilla Parishad, Primary School of village Ankulanga (Rani) at entry No. 324 wherein the caste of respondent No. 1 is shown to be Hindu (Jangam). The word ‘Mala’ was subsequently added and there is also difference in the ink and handwriting.

(b) One Chandrama Kashinath Kalge is cousin sister of respondent No. 1 and in the General Register of Zilla Parishad, Primary School of village Ankulga (Rani), at Sr. No. 51, her caste is shown to be Lingayat (Jangam) and it falls in Other Backward Class.

(c) One Lata Bai Bandappa Kalge is the real sister of respondent No.1 and her caste in the General Register of Zilla Parishad, Primary School of village Ankulnga (Rani) is shown to be Lingayat (Jangam), so also in her school leaving certificate dated 12.06.1974 she is shown to be Hindu Jangam, which is recognized as Other Backward Class.

(d) One Shankar Shivbas Kalge is real cousin brother of respondent and his caste is Jangam.

(e) In the Khasara Pahani Patrak record i.e. Village Namuna Number 13 of village Ankulnga (Rani) the caste of her real uncles by name Vadappa Mahalingappa, Kashinath Mahalingappa and Vishwanath

                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                  supreme today icon
                  logo-black

                  An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                  Please visit our Training & Support
                  Center or Contact Us for assistance

                  qr

                  Scan Me!

                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                  whatsapp-icon Back to top