Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2030
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 7099 of 2023 BETWEEN:- JASRAJ S/O NANURAM BALAI, AGED: 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TELANKHEDI JAGOLI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI NITIN PHADKE - ADVOCATE.) AND 1. THE SPECIFIED OFFICER-CUM-SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE), DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. RAJA S/O RAMESH KAITHWAS, AGED: 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ARNIA KUMAR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. SONU CHAPRI S/O BADRILAL CHAPRI, AGED: 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TELANKEDI JAGOLI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH) 4. RAVI S/O BABULAL KETHWAS, AGED: 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ARANIA KUMAR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO.1 - STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH BY SHRI RAJWARDHAN GAWDE - ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL. RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI SIDDHARTH DHARMADHIKARI - ADVOCATE. NONE APPEARS FOR RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4.) This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Nitin Phadke,Advocate General
The main legal point established is that a candidate contesting an election reserved for SC Category must possess a valid Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority in the concerned State.
Headnote:
Caste Certificate - Election Disqualification - The court upheld the disqualification of a candidate from contesting the election for the post of Sarpanch due to the lack of a valid Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested for the post of Sarpanch in an election reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) Category, claiming to be a 'Balai' without a valid Caste Certificate from the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's election was rightly set aside as he did not possess a valid Caste Certificate from the State of Madhya Pradesh, which is a requirement for contesting the election reserved for SC Category.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the petitioner's claim to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch without a valid Caste Certificate from the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the constitutional provision of reservation for SC and ST Categories in Panchayats, emphasizing the requirement of a valid Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority in the concerned State.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the disqualification of the petitioner from holding the post of Sarpanch due to the lack of a valid Caste Certificate from the State of Madhya Pradesh.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 13.03.2023, whereby election petition filed by respondent No.2 has been allowed; and the election of the petitioner to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jagoli, Tehsil and District Neemuch (M.P.) has been aside.
2. The election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jagoli, Tehsil and District Neemuch (M.P.) was held on 25.06.2022 in which the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4 contested for the post of Sarpanch. Admittedly, the post of Sarpanch was reserved for a candidate of Scheduled Caste (SC) Category. The petitioner submitted a nomination form as a SC Candidate, as he is claiming himself to be a 'Balai’, which is a Scheduled Caste in Madhya Pradesh as well as in State of Rajasthan. In the election, the petitioner secured 362 votes and the election petitioner (respondent No.2 herein) secured 235 votes; and accordingly, the petitioner was declared elected.
3. Respondent No.2 filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (herein after referred to as Panchayat Act, 1993) along with Rules 3.21 and 23 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.
4. The Specified Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Neemuch (Respondent No.1) has held that the petitioner was born in Village Arar, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) and migrated to the State of Madhya Pradesh and he is not having a Caste Certificate of Scheduled Caste issued by the Competent Authority in the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, he is not entitled to hold the post of Sarpanch; and accordingly, the election of the petitioner has been set aside. Hence, this petition before this Court.
5. Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Caste of ‘Balai’ comes under the list of SC in the State of Madhya Pradesh also. His all family members are having Caste Certificate. The petitioner also applied for issuance of Caste Certificate, but the same has been rejected, against which, he filed an appeal, which is still pending.
was qualified to contest the election of Sarpanch and as his name is included in the voter list of Gram Panchayat and he is fulfilling all the qualifications for the post of Sarpanch. He is also not incurring any disqualification as prescribed under Section 36 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Therefore, his election has wrongly been set aside.
7. It is further submitted that he was not given any opportunity to lead evidence, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside; and the matter be remanded back to the Specified Officer (respondent No.1).
8. Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel further submits that the learned Specified Officer has placed reliance on a circular dated 06.08.1984 issued by the Government of India, which applies to the migrants, who are aspirant to take the benefits out of their Caste of their original State. For contesting the election, the petitioner is not taking any benefit by virtue of his Caste of ‘Balai’ in the State of Rajasthan. He has been elected by the voters, as he secured the highest votes, therefore, the person or a resident, who has received the highest votes, is entitled to continue as Sarpanch, which cannot be terms as a benefit taken by him. Even otherwise, he submits that the circular applies for securing other benefits like scholarship, admission, appointment, promotion in reserved category.
9. In support of his contention, Shri Phadke has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Aruna v. The State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal No(s).4457-4458 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil No(s).10675-10676 of 2020) dated 27.07.2021.
10. Shri Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the post
