1. This Civil Revision under section 26(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 is directed by the revisionist/respondent No. 1 against the impugned judgment dated 25.1.2012 passed by III Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Election Petition No. 1/2011, whereby the election of the revisionist/respondent No. 1, Govind Singh, returned candidate to the Municipal Council, Shivpuri from Ward No. 16 has been declared void.

2. The Election Petitioners, who had themselves contested the election for the office of Councilor from Ward No. 16 of the Municipal Council, Shivpuri held on 20.12.2004 had raised an objection before the Returning Officer, that respondent No. 1 Goving Singh belongs to general category being a member of ‘Rajput’ caste, therefore, his candidature against the reserved consitituency for the Schedule Tribe should not be permitted but the Returning Officer while conducting preliminary enquiry, based upon the Caste Certificate produced by respondent No. 1, found him to be a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribe and permitted him to participate in the Election Process. In the Election Process, he (Goving Singh) was declared as returned candidate from Ward No. 16 and a Certificate of Election was issued in his favour. Thereafter, Election Petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 herein/petitioners under section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 against the returned candidate, Govind Singh on the ground that he belongs to ‘Rajput’ caste and is not a member of Scheduled Tribe for which Ward No. 16 was reserved.

3. Revisionist/respondent No. 1, Govind Singh pleaded in his written statement that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe and such a certificate was issued to him by the competent authority, therefore, he had lawfully contested the Election from Ward No. 16 of Municipal Council, Shivpuri as a Scheduled Tribe candidate.

4. The Election Petition was tried by IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shivpuri in the Election Petition No. 2/05 and by a judgment dated 4.8.2005, the Election Petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 4.8.2005, respondents filed Civil Revision. Vide order dated 29.4.2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 202/05, this Court by allowing the same, set-aside the impugned judgment dated 4.8.2005 and remanded the matter back to the Election Tribunal for holding fresh trial.

5. The matter was tried afresh as per direction of this Court and vide the impugned judgment dated 25.1.2012, the Election Petition was allowed by setting aside the election of the respondent No. 1, Govind Singh.

6. Shri Anil Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the Caste Certificate was issued by the Competent Authority after holding due enquiry. The learned Election Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the authenticity and genuineness of the Caste Certificate. He further submits that the mark-sheet of class IX (Exhibit P-3) alleged to be of Govind Singh contains material discrepancy not only in the name of student but also in the name of description to his father and the word ‘Rajput’ has been added subsequently by overwriting or postscript. Govind Singh never studied in that school at Shivpuri, therefore, the mark-sheet (Exhibit P-3) do not belong to him and as such, it cannot be used for denying the genuineness of his Caste Certificate. The description contained in khasra panchsala creates sufficient suspicion against the parentage of Govind Singh. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Madhuri patil (Kumari) and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94, the Election Tribunal be directed to refer the matter to Caste Scrutiny Committee to investigate into the caste status of Govind Singh.

7. On the other hand, Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 herein argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that Caste Certifica