The court affirmed that a caste certificate must be issued by the relevant district's Tehsildar, and elections can be annulled if misrepresentation of caste is established.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit, filed today, are taken on record.

2. Heard Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. These two writ petitions filed by petitioner under Article 227 & 226 of Constitution of India, assail the order passed by District Judge, Basti in Civil Revision No. 65 of 2022 dated 05.05.2023 upholding the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by Prescribed Authority/ Sub-divisional Magistrate, Harraiya, District-Basti in Case No. 6023 of 2021 (election petition), under Section 12-C of U.P. Panchyat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1947') and also the notification dated 16.08.2023 issued by Election Commission, U.P., Lucknow.

4. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of these writ petitions are that election to the post of Village Pradhan of Village Panchayat Hyderabad, Tappa Sikandarpur, Block-Parasrampur, Pargana-Amorha, Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti was held in April, 2021. The petitioner was declared elected as Pradhan.

5. Respondent no. 1 challenged the election of petitioner on the ground that he belongs to general category but had contested election as backward class category and the seat of Village Pradhan of said village was reserved for Other Backward Category (OBC). Hence, election petition under Section 12-C of the Act of 1947 was instituted on 12.07.2021. The petitioner contested the election petition and filed his written statement. The Prescribed Authority allowed the election petition on 16.12.2022 and set aside the election of petitioner. Aggrieved by the order, a revision was preferred before District Judge, Basti being Revision No. 65 of 2022 which was dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2023. Hence, present writ petition.

6. Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner belongs to OBC category and was issued a caste certificate in the year 2010 from District- Prayagraj, demonstrating that he belongs to Mewati caste which comes under Other Backward Category (OBC), thereafter another certificate was issued in the year 2014 and thereafter on 27.01.2021. He then contended that denial of the caste certificate from District-Basti was under challenge in Writ-C No. 10917 of 2021, and during pendency of the said petition, the petitioner had contested the election and once he stood elected, the petition was dismissed as infructuous.

7. He then contended that the Prescribed Authority was not correct to allow the election petition without framing issues, and it was mandatory on behalf of Prescribed Authority to have proceeded with election petition only after framing of issues. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Subodh Kanti vs. District Judge, Unnao and others, 2023 (157) ALR 510. Reliance has also been placed upon another decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Shaba @ Munni vs. District and Sessions Judge, Barabanki and others, 2019 (145) RD 500.

8. Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submitted that it is not a case of refusal of grant of caste certificate by district authorities at Basti but in fact the application submitted by petitioner for issuance of caste certificate was rejected by Tehsildar-Harraiya, Basti on 22.02.2021 on the ground that the petitioner was required to produce evidence as to entry in the revenue records of 1359 fasli. It was on the application moved by petitioner before Tehsildar that an enquiry was conducted by Lekhpal who had submitted his report, in which it was stated that the tenure holder Badal Kha, grand father of petitioner was recorded as person belonging to ‘Pathan’ caste which comes under the General category and petitioner does not belong to ‘Mewati’ caste. The rejection order was challenged by petitioner before this Court, and it