JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

Date : 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.08.2023 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14258 of 2022, whereby the learned Single judge dismissed the writ petition.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was elected as a Mukhiya in the year 2021 on the seat which was reserved for extremely backward class candidates. Thereafter Respondent No. 4 lodged a complaint under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 seeking his disqualification on the ground that he does not belong to the Extremely Backward Class. The said complaint was registered as Case No. 72 of 2021, and upon notice, the appellant appeared and filed his written statement disputing the allegations and asserting that the documents relied upon by the complainant were fabricated. Upon consideration, the State Election Commission referred the issue of caste status to the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 15.07.2022. Being aggrieved by the said order of reference dated 15.07.2022, the appellant preferred the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 14258 of 2022 before this Court, inter alia, challenging the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission to make such reference.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Caste Scrutiny Committee proceeded with the matter and, upon enquiry, returned a finding vide order dated 12.01.2023 declaring the appellant to be of Koeri (Kushwaha) caste. The appellant, thereafter, also challenged the said order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the pending writ proceedings; however, the writ petition ultimately came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 09.08.2023, giving rise to the present intra-court appeal.

5. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, made the following observations:

75. This Court has gone through the facts of the case as also the submissions put forward by the rival parties and finds force in the averments made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4, the State as also the Election Commission.

76. As per the documents on record, the ‘Dangi’ caste was incorporated as a separate caste in the year 1995 and has not been carved out from Kushwaha/Koeri as pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and is also reflected from the Gazette notification.

77. Further, as per the letter no. 673 dated 08.03.2011 issued by ‘the GAD’, the land revenue record is the foremost document for the issuance of caste certificate and only in its absence, the other documents have to be relied upon.

78. In the case of the petitioner, the admitted fact is that his ancestor, Bhagelu Mahato has been shown in the ‘Khatiyan’ as ‘Koeri’ (Khushwaha) .

79. Even the petitioner purchased the land in 2018 showing himself to be of ‘Koeri’ caste. Further, as per the findings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee; one Santosh Kumar, son of Nandlal Prasad of village Baghambarpur, P.O. Patjirwa, Shree Nagar, West Champaran who is a Government Teacher in Bhagambarpur Panchayat and own cousin of petitioner is having a ‘Koeri’ caste certificate.

80. In view of such unimpeachable evidences before the Caste Scrutiny Committee which included the report submitted by ‘the CID’ showing the petitioner to be a ‘Koeri’ (Khushwaha) caste; it rightly came to the finding communicated vide memo no 863 dated 12.01.2023 which cannot be faulted upon.

81. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 4 has rightly pointed out that the Inquiry Committee of ‘the CID’ which submitted its report to the Caste Scrutiny Committee (and formed basis for coming to the said conclusion vide letter no. 1812 dated 18.10.2022) also incorporated the fact that the Santosh Kumar, cousin brother of the petitioner and the Government Teacher has got a caste certificate showing himself as a ‘Koeri’ caste which comes under OBC category.

82.