An authority which is competent to grant a certificate is also competent to cancel it if it is obtained on the basis of misrepresentation of facts.

S. K. PHAUJDAR, J.

The three writ petitions were taken up for hearing together as the primary question involved in this writ petition is the cancellation of caste certificate of Bhikham Kharwar. He was given a caste certificate by the Tehsildar Chakiya, Chandauli, on 21-1-1994 cer tifying him to have belonged to Kharwar community, a schedule caste. On the basis of this certificate he contested an election for the post of the Pradhan of a gram panchayat and candidature therein was reserved for scheduled caste candidates only. He was elected as the Pradhan. Sub sequent to this election certain persons questioned his caste and upon an enquiry it was found that he belonged to Kahar sect, a backward class but not scheduled caste. Caste certificate was cancelled by Tehsildar on 5-9-1997 pursuant to an order of the District Magistrate dated 28-8-1997.

2. The cancellation of the caste cer tificate has been challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32072 of 1997 on the ground that he was not given any hearing before cancellation of his caste certificate and the concerned authorities had no right to cancell the caste certificate once given.

3. As a consequence to the cancella tion of the caste certificate the District Magistrate took an action under Section 95 (l) (g), of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act in removing the Pradhan and the order in this respect was passed on 10-6-1999. This order of removal was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25547 of 1999 by Bhikham Kharwar on the ground that the provisions of Section 95 (l) (g), and the Rules under the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and members) Rules were not followed. This petition was contested not only by the State but also by R. K. Pandey who was the Up-Pradhan, put in charge of the post of the Pradhan after the removal of Bhikham Kharwar.

4. After the removal of the Pradhan by an order dated 10-6-1999 a direction was issued on 14-6-1999 to make over the charge of the office of the Pradhan to the Up-Pradhan within three days. The Up-Pradhan made out a case that the charge was made over to him as directed. In the meantime, there had been an interim order in the second mentioned writ peti tion staying the operation of the order dated 10-6- 1999. When this order reached the authorities charge was taken away from R. K. Pandey and was placed in the hands of Bhikham Kharwar again. Being aggrieved, R. K. Pandey moved the third writ petition to say that the interim order could not have nullified the accomplished fact of charge having been made over to him. This prayer was contested by Bhik ham Kharwar. The State was also heard.

5. In the first mentioned writ petition the question that arises for determination is whether the cancellation was made ac cording to law and the point raised by the petitioner was to the effect that he was not heard at all and on this point reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gulzar Singh v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate and another as reported in (1999) 3 SCC at page 107. The learned counsel for R. K. Pandey pointed out to certain admission by Bhikham Kharwar in Annexure No. 15 to his second mentioned writ petition wherein he had admitted to have shown cause before the Up- Zila Adhikari. A perusal of paragraph 10 of Annexure No. 15 to the Writ Petition No. 25547 of 1999 indicates that the petitioner had placed his evidence before the Up-Zila Adhikari but the same were not acted upon. It appears that when the complaint regarding the caste of Bhikham Kharwar was made before the District Magistrate, he caused an enquiry to be conducted and the enquiry revealed, as per Annexure No. 1 to the amendment peti tion filed in Writ Petition No. 32072 of 1997, that the earlier certificate, certifying Bhikham Kharwar as belonging to Kharwar caste was based merely on the revenue record and basically the record had indi cated his caste as "kahar" but only in 1994-95 it was abruptly changed to "kharwar". Enquiry revealed th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document