Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1087
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJAN ROY, J.
Shaba @ Munni - Appellant
Versus
Distt & Sess. Judge Barabanki & Ors - Respondent
MISC. SINGLE No. 11002 of 2017
Decided On : 15-05-2019
For the Appellant : Ravi Nath Tilhari
For the Respondent: C.S.C, Dwijendra Misra, R K Chaudhary
Headnote:
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 – Section 11A, 12(5) and 12(c) & 12-b(5) ,12-C(6) – Consolidation of India – Article 226 – Whether election petition of opposite party-3 before Prescribed Authority – Challenging election of petitioner-Gram Pradhan on ground that caste-certificate was false and fabricated and that she did not belong to 'O.B.C. Category – Therefore her election as Gram Pradhan against seat reserved for 'O.B.C. Category' was invalid, was maintainable or not – Held, District Caste Scrutiny Committee undertake an exercise for verification of caste-certificate issued to petitioner by Tehsildar Nawabganj, in terms of directions issued by Supreme Court – Decision said Committee, subject to any challenge made in appeal or under Article 226 constitution of India and in an intra court appeal – Scenario not required to consider validity of caste-certificate nor caste status of petitioner, but only to take into consideration decision taken by Committee and record its conclusions after hearing concerned parties and referring to pleadings, grounds and evidence in this regard in light of provisions contained in section 12-C and such other provisions of Act as may be relevant – Order of Revisional Authority modified in light of what has been held hereinabove – Election petition maintainable before Prescribed Authority only in circumstances and scenarios as mentioned hereinabove, and not otherwise – Petition disposed off. (Paras: 50 to 54)
Facts of the case:
Whether election petition of opposite party-3 before Prescribed Authority – Challenging election of petitioner-Gram Pradhan on ground that caste-certificate was false and fabricated and that she did not belong to 'O.B.C. Category – Therefore her election as Gram Pradhan against seat reserved for 'O.B.C. Category' was invalid, was maintainable or not.
Findings of the court:
District Caste Scrutiny Committee undertake an exercise for verification of caste-certificate issued to petitioner by Tehsildar Nawabganj, in terms of directions issued by Supreme Court – Decision said Committee, subject to any challenge made in appeal or under Article 226 constitution of India and in an intra court appeal – Scenario not required to consider validity of caste-certificate nor caste status of petitioner, but only to take into consideration decision taken by Committee and record its conclusions after hearing concerned parties and referring to pleadings, grounds and evidence in this regard in light of provisions contained in section 12-C and such other provisions of Act as may be relevant – Order of Revisional Authority modified in light of what has been held hereinabove – Election petition maintainable before Prescribed Authority only in circumstances and scenarios as mentioned hereinabove, and not otherwise.
Result: Petition disposed off
JUDGMENT :
RAJAN ROY, J.
1. Short Counter Affidavit has been filed, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ravi Nath Tilhari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jagdish Prasad Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Dwijendra Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and Sri R. K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4.
3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Consolidation of India challenging the order passed by the Revisional Authority under Section 12-C(6) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act 1947’) i.e. the District Judge, Barabanki, in Revision No. 58 of 2016; Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another dated 12.04.2017.
4. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner herein filed his nomination for election to the office of Gram Pradhan and was elected as Gram Pradhan as a candidate belonging to the OBC category for which the concerned Gram Pranchayat was reserved in terms of Section 11-A read with Section 12-b(5) of the Act 1947 and the relevant Rules in this regard. The opposite party no. 3 herein, the runner up in the said election, filed an election petition whereupon notices were issued to the petitioner who raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition stating therein that the only ground on which the election had been challenged was that the Caste Certificate of the petitioner had been obtained fraudulently as he did not belong to the OBC category, but, validity of the Caste Certificate could not be seen by the Prescribed Authority in an election petition under Section 12-C(1) of the Act 1947, therefore, the petition was not maintainable.
5. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the petition vide judgment dated 02.07.2016. A revision under section 12-C(6) was filed by the opposite party no.3 which was allowed vide judgment dated 12.4.2017 and the matter was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for consideration afresh. Being aggrieved this writ petition has been filed.
6. The moot point which falls for consideration in this case is as to whether the election petition of the opposite party no.3 before the Prescribed Authority, challenging the election of the petitioner-Gram Pradhan on the ground that the caste-certificate was false and fabricated and that she did not belong to the 'O.B.C. Category', therefore her election as Gram Pradhan against a seat reserved for the 'O.B.C. Category' was invalid, was maintainable or not ?
7. The Prescribed Authority after issuing notice to the petitioner herein who was the defendant before him held that the validity of a caste certificate cannot be seen by her, therefore, the election petition was not maintainable. Accordingly vide order dated 2.7.2016 she dismissed the election petition.
8. Being aggrieved the opposite party no.3 herein filed a revision. The revisional authority i.e. the District Judge considered the provisions of sections 11A, 12(5) and 12(c) and arrived at the conclusion that one of the grounds on which the election of a Gram Pradhan could be challenged under section 12-C(1) was improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination and the other was gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act 1947 and the Rules made thereunder. He opined that if a candidate not belonging to the O.B.C. category had contested the election as a reserved category candidate belonging to the said category and his nomination for such seat was accepted, then, if ultimately, it is found that he did not belong to the O.B.C. category, it would be a case of improper acceptance of nomination and the election petition would be maintainable. He also opined that in such a situation as a candidate, who did not belong to the reserved category, got elected illegally against a seat reserved for the Reserved Category in terms of section 11-A, then the other ground i.e. gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Rules would also be available,
