JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

The post of the Ward Councillor of Ward No. 67 of Patna Municipal Corporation was reserved for Extremely Backward Class (for short EBC) for the election held on 04.06.2017. The petitioner and Respondent No. 11 had contested the said election, both claiming to be belonging to EBC. The petitioner is indisputably Teli by caste. Respondent No. 11, on the other hand, claimed his status of EBC with his caste name ‘Awadh Baniya’.

2. It is the petitioner’s case that Respondent No. 11 does not belong to the caste Awadh Bania rather he is Kalwar Bania by caste which does not fall within the EBC category. The only dispute, which the petitioner has raised in this writ application, is as to whether Respondent No. 11 is Awadh Bania or not. The State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Bihar, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’), upon determination of the caste status of Respondent No. 11, has concluded that he belongs to the caste Awadh Bania which comes under EBC (Schedule-1). The said decision of the Committee dated 16.03.2020 is under challenge in the present writ application. The petitioner is seeking a consequential declaration from this Court to the effect that Respondent No. 11, being ineligible for the post because of his caste status and the petitioner having secured second highest votes in the said election, stood validly elected for the post of Ward Councillor.

3. Upon perusal of the pleadings and copies of the documents brought on record and rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties the Court is called upon to consider and decide whether the impugned finding and decision of the Committee need interference by this Court in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, whether the nature of consequential relief, which the petitioner is seeking, can be granted by this Court in a writ proceeding.

4. We have heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 11, Mr. Ruchikar Jha, learned AC to SC-8 and Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, learned counsel for the State Election Commission.

5. It is deemed appropriate to narrate briefly certain undisputed facts which give the background in which the present writ application has been filed. Indisputably, the seat was reserved for EBC. The petitioner being Teli by caste belongs to EBC. During the process of scrutiny of nomination paper election itself the petitioner had raised an objection regarding the status of Respondent No. 11 as EBC asserting that he was Jaiswal/ Baniya, a Backward Class and not EBC.

6. Respondent No. 11 resisted the claim of the petitioner with his plea that he was born and bought up in the State of Bihar and his forefathers were residents of Lucknow who were Awadh Bania, which caste falls under EBC category. Respondent No. 11 possessed a certificate issued by a competent authority as regards his caste status of Awadh Baniya falling under EBC category. Respondent No. 11 was declared elected with 4849 votes and petitioner stood second with 3735 votes to his credit. The petitioner had approached the State Election Commission during the election process itself, questioning the claim of Respondent No. 11 of being belonging to EBC category. Evidently, on the petitioner’s complain filed against Respondent No. 11, an enquiry was conducted. From a communication dated 21.08.2017 of the Election Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna addressed to the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Patna it appears that the petitioner’s complain was found correct. The said report of the Election Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation dated 21.08.2017 was forwarded to the State Election Commission by the District Electoral Officer (Municipalities)-cum-District Magistrate, Patna for further action. The State Election Commission, thereafter, put the petitioner to notice fixing a date of h