IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
R. Banumathi, Aparesh Kumar Singh, JJ.
Madan Mohan Gond - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand & others - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 341 of 2013
Decided On: 23/01/2014
Scheduled Tribe - Election Dispute - Sixth Schedule of Bihar Reorganization Act - Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The appellant contested the election for the post of Mukhiya claiming to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe based on a caste certificate. The election was challenged, and the Sub Divisional Officer cancelled the appellant's election. The appellant appealed to the Single Judge, who refused to entertain the writ application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community was based on doubtful documents and did not conclusively establish his membership. The court also noted that the Presidential Notification declared the 'Gond' community, not the 'Gaur' community, to be a scheduled tribe community.
Issues: Disputed questions of fact regarding the appellant's scheduled tribe status, jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officer, and the need for a declaration from the competent Civil Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's claim was based on doubtful documents and did not establish his scheduled tribe membership. The court also emphasized the importance of the Presidential Notification in determining scheduled tribe status.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's conclusion that the order did not require any interference.
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J: - The writ petitioner is in appeal against the judgment dated 29th August 2013 passed in WPC No. 6140/2012 by the learned Single Judge refusing to entertain his writ application. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 14th September 2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur cancelling his election as Mukhiya of Shaharkol Panchayat, had preferred the writ application seeking quashing of the same.
2. The appellant had contested the election for the post of Mukhiya of the said panchayat falling within the district of Pakur claiming himself to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The appellant was declared elected for the said post. The respondent no. 4 challenged his election before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pakur on the ground that he does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes Category and was not eligible to contest the election as a Scheduled Tribe Candidate for the post of Mukhiya of Shaharkol Panchayat.
3. According to the respondent no. 4, the petitioner belongs to the caste 'Gode' and not 'Gond'. Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur after hearing the appellant and the respondent no. 4 and after going through the inquiry report prepared at the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur came to the conclusion that the petitioner has been elected on the post of Mukhiya on false representation of being a Scheduled Tribe candidate for the reserved seat of Shaharkol Panchayat and cancelled his election.
4. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order, had challenged the same before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after considering the fact that the issue raised by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact and that it is the 'Gond' community comes within the ambit of Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential Order applicable within the State of Jharkhand, refused to entertain the writ application which was dismissed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ application, observed that the petitioner claims to a member of the Scheduled Tribe as according to him, the caste 'Gond' and 'Gode' comes within the community of the Scheduled Tribe.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from error as the learned Single Judge has erroneously held that such disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated in the declaratory suit before the competent civil court. According to the appellant, in a circumstance relating to the determination of question whether a particular person falls within the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category or otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others [AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94] has clearly directed that such an issue should be resolved by a Caste Scrutiny Committee. It has been submitted that such committee has been constituted by the State of Jharkhand vide notification dated 8th July 2004 and the committee comprises of Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Tribal Welfare Commissioner, person nominated by the State Government having special knowledge of Scheduled Caste / Tribe and Managing Director, Scheduled Tribe Cooperative Development Corporation. Therefore, the learned Single Judge committed an error in not entertaining the writ application and relegating the petitioner to seek a declaration from the competent civil court. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the very issue whether 'Gaur / Gond' community is to be treated as a Scheduled Tribe and the same as 'Gond', has been decided by the Government of Bihar vide its DOPT resolution dated 20th July 2007 which is enclosed as annexure-13 to the instant appeal. It is submitted that the State of Jharkhand in the revised list of Most backward caste and backward caste published on 31st March 2010 vide resolution no. 1816 of DOPT, Government of Jharkha
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.