ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :

“(i) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the Writ of Quo Warranto against the private respondent and further be pleased to restrain him from working as Member, Jila Panchayat Raisen for Ward No.3.

(ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that, the private respondent does not belong to Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.

(iii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of election of Member, Jila Panchayat Raisen for Ward No.3, for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

(iv) Any other relief/reliefs, order/orders, direction/directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner including the cost of petition.”

2. Since none appears for petitioner, therefore, this petition would be decided after going through the pleadings and documents filed alongwith the writ petition as well as submissions made by counsel for respondents.

3. According to the petition, post of Member, Jila Panchayat Raisen Ward No.3 was reserved for the member of Other Backward Classes. Respondent No.6 submitted his nomination form by submitting his affidavit that he belongs to O.B.C. category whereas according to petitioner, respondent No.6 belongs to Unreserved Category. It was also mentioned in the nomination form that since he is not in possession of caste certificate, therefore, on the basis of affidavit, his nomination paper was accepted and accordingly, he was declared elected.

4. It is the case of petitioner that caste of respondent No.6 is “Baghel” and not “Pal Baghele” and thus, this petition in the nature of quo warranto has been filed, pleading that respondent No.6 is not eligible to hold the post of Member Jila Panchayat Ward No.3, Raisen.

5. Respondent No.6 has filed his return and submitted that in view of specific bar under Article 243 ZG (B) of Constitution of India, the election to any municipality cannot be called in question by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India but it should have been questioned by filing an election petition. It is further submitted that whether respondent No.6 belongs to Baghel caste or Pal Baghele caste cannot be adjudicated by this Court because in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 the jurisdiction lies with High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.

6. Similarly respondents No.2 to 4 have also filed their return and taken a similar defence. It is further submitted that wife of petitioner has also filed an election petition against the election of respondent No.6. The entire election was conducted strictly in accordance with law.

7. During the course of arguments, respondent No.6 has also provided a copy of order dated 19.12.2023 passed by Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Election Petition No.2/A-89/2022-23 by which election petition filed by Smt. Pooja Chouksey wife of petitioner was rejected on the ground that as per Circular dated 5.12.2014 issued by Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission, if a candidate submits his affidavit with regard to caste, then Returning Officer shall not investigate the matter any further and nomination form shall be treated as valid. By referring to the same circular, it was also held that if the candidate is not in possession of caste certificate at the time of submission of nomination form, then he can submit his affidavit in that regard. Therefore, it was held that nomination paper of respondent No.6 was rightly accepted because he had submitted an affidavit that he belongs to Pal Baghele caste and at that time he was not in possession of caste certificate.

8. Heard learned counsels for respondents as well as also considered the grounds raised in the writ petition. Whether writ of quo warranto thereby