JUDGMENT

S. B. SINHA, J. — Leave granted.

Background fact :

2. The First Respondent herein was Rajput by caste. She married one Ghanshyam on 09.12.2000, who was a member of Sched¬uled Caste. The marriage was performed as per Vedic Hindu Rites. She applied for and granted a certificate of being belonging to Scheduled Caste by birth by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.), Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, describing her as a daughter of Ramaye, who in fact was her husband’s elder brother’s father-in-law.

3. An inquiry was caused to be made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate upon receiving a complaint that the said certificate contained wrong declaration as she was daughter of one Chinna Singh and not of Ramaye. The said allegations were found to be correct.It was also found that the First Respondent’s Jethani’s name was also co-incidentally Sunita. On the said premise, the certificate granted in her favour was cancelled by an order dated 10.07.2002 and a criminal case under Sections 406, 420, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.The said criminal case is still pending.

Election Proceedings :

4. The First Respondent herein contested an election for the Municipal Councilor from Ward No.20, Subhash Nagar Ward of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Assembly Constituency No.13, a seat reserved for a Scheduled Caste woman. She was declared elected. The Appellant herein was also a candidate. Whereas the First Respondent got 14,757 votes, the Appellant herein got 13,755 votes.

One Krishan Lal filed an election petition before the Dis¬trict Jude, Delhi in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Munici¬pal Corporation Act, 1957, wherein, inter alia a prayer was made to the effect that the Appellant herein be declared elected. The contention of the election-petitioner in the said proceedings was that as the First Respondent herein was born in an upper caste family,she could not have been considered to be belonging to Scheduled Caste by reason of her marriage only. The Appellant indisputably was arrayed as Respondent No.2. In the said proceed¬ings, the learned Judge, inter alia, framed the following issues:

“4. Whether the respondent No.1 belongs to a scheduled caste category ?

5. Whether the respondent No.1 acquired the status of scheduled caste by virtue of her marriage with a Jatav notified as scheduled caste category for the purpose of her eligibility to contest municipal election in Delhi ?

6. Whether the election of respondent No.1 as a Municipal Councilor from Ward No.20 is liable to be declared void on facts mentioned in the petition ?

7. If issue No.6 is decided in affirmative whether respond¬ent No.2 is entitled to be declared elected from Ward No.20 as Municipal Councilor ?”

5. Issue Nos.4 and 5 were taken up for consideration to¬gether. Relying, inter alia, upon a decision of this Court in Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and others [AIR 1996 SC 1011], the learned Judge opined”

“25. In view of the above testimony of respondent No.1 in her cross-examination, no manner of doubt is left in my mind except to hold that respondent No.1 has manipulated a scheduled caste certificate by hoodwinking the legal process. By no means she can be said to have acquired the status of scheduled caste merely because of her marriage with scheduled caste person. Hence, both these issues are decided against respondent No.1”

6. Having regard to the aforementioned findings, the election of the First Respondent herein was held to be void and of no effect and was consequently set aside. Issue No.7 was, however, not pressed.

High Court Proceedings :

7. A writ petition was filed thereagainst by the First Re¬spondent before the Delhi High Court. The High Court in its judg¬ment noticed several decisions of this Court and opined that as the First Respondent was accepted by her husband’s family and Biradari, the judgment of the learned District Judge was unsus¬tainable. The High Court distinguished Valsamma Paul (supra) on the premise that ‘principl