IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 39 of 2024 BRAJESH SINGH Versus RAM PRASAD DEHARIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Rohit Sohgaura -

Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Sarwate - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Ritwik Parashar - Goverment Advocate for respondent No.9.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment and order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.29557/2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. By the said writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, acting as the Election Tribunal.

2. By order dated 16.11.2023, the Election Tribunal allowed the election petition filed by respondent No.1 and set aside the election of the appellant to the post of Member, Zila Panchayat, Seoni. The Tribunal held that Bagri/Bagdi caste falls under Rajput/Thakur caste in District Seoni and is not recognised as a Scheduled Caste as per various Government orders. On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste category and, therefore, was not qualified to contest the election for a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste under Rule 31(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 and Section 14(2) of the Panchayat and Gram Swaraj Act, 1993. Consequently, the election of the appellant was declared void under Rules 21(1)(a) and 23(1)(b) of the M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification from Membership)

Rules, 1995, with a direction to hold fresh election.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Election Tribunal, the appellant approached this Writ Court by filing W.P. No.29557/2023, contending that the election petition was decided without framing issues and without granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, despite specific request having been made. It was pleaded that the controversy relating to wrongful acceptance of the nomination form could not have been adjudicated without recording evidence, particularly when the appellant had filed a detailed reply supported by documents showing compliance with Rule 40A of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 and the Circular dated 13.12.2021. It was further contended that the Election Tribunal erred in determining the caste status of the appellant solely on the basis of executive instructions, without any evidentiary foundation and in disregard of the Constitutional (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.

4. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 28.12.2023, holding that as per Form-4 prescribed under Rule 31 of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, as amended by notification dated 24.04.2019, submission of caste certificate along with the nomination form is mandatory. It was held that since the appellant did not file the caste certificate within the stipulated time, the nomination itself was defective and ought to have been rejected at the stage of scrutiny by the Returning Officer.

5. The appellant has now preferred the present writ appeal, contending that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the statutory scheme of the Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. It is urged that Rule 40A, which begins with a non-obstante clause, specifically provides a complete mechanism in cases where the Returning Officer doubts the caste status of a candidate contesting from a reserved seat. As per Rule 40A(2), once the candidate files an affidavit affirming his caste status, the Returning Officer is required to treat the nomination as valid without making any further enquiry. It is further contended that the portion of Form-4 relied upon by the learned Single Judge pertains to the part to be filled by the Retur