Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—The petitioner Mujahid contested the elections of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Hareta Vikas Khand Said Nagar, District Rampur. It is admitted on record that the seat of Pradhan of the village was reserved for Backward Class. The petitioner who belongs to Turk by Caste and as such is a member of General Category produced a caste certificate from the Tehsildar Sadar, Rampur dated 6.9.1995 which recorded that the petitioner is belongs to Jhojha by caste and, therefore, within the category of Other Backward Class.

2. On a complaint made in respect of certificate so produced, a notice was issued on 10.7.2007 to which the petitioner has filed his reply.

3. After examination of the explanation furnished and the records the District Magistrate under the impugned order dated 23.7.2007 has recorded that the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice dated 10.7.2007, is not satisfactory. He has held that petitioner has produced a forged caste certificate and therefore, his election is null and void. The District Magistrate has removed the petitioner from the office of the Pradhan under the impugned order.

4. On behalf of petitioner it is contended that the certificate which has been issued by the Tehsildar has not been cancelled and, therefore, the order of the District Magistrate holding that the petitioner is not a member of the Backward Class cannot be legally sustained. Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Hotilal v. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (3) AWC 176, wherein it has been held that the election of the Pradhan cannot be set aside by the District Magistrate, nor any restrain on discharge of duties qua administrative and financial powers can be directed, in exercise of power under Section 95 (1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act on the ground that the Pradhan does not belong to the Caste for which the seat was reserved. The proper remedy has been held to be by way of election petition.

5. I have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

6. Two issues arises before this Court :

(a) should equitable writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be exercised in favour of the person who has contested the elections claiming to be the member of a caste on the basis of a forged certificate;

(b) should this Court set aside an order of the District Magistrate on the plea that the proper remedy available is to file an election petition as has been held in the case of Hotilal (supra).

7. In the opinion of the Court the answer to first question is in itself sufficient to disentitle the petitioner any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court may record that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and others, JT 2000(3) SC 151, has held that fraud and justice cannot go together. The relevant paragraph-3 reads as follows :

“Fraud and justice never dwell together” (Frans et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that “no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything” (Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley, 1956 (1) QB 702.)”

8. Similarly it has been held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for questioning an order which may perpetuate illegality.

9. In the facts of this case it has been found that as a matter of fact, the certificate produced by the petitioner in respect of his being member of the Other Backward Class is a forged document.

10. Even otherwise the certificate enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure 3 to the present writ petition and which is the sheet anchor of the petitioner is only a waste paper. It is worthwhile to produce the contents of the certificate said to have been issued :

“Bhulekh Nirikshak Umrao Singh Ki Akhya Ke Adha