Election Petition No. 3 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:21373 EP 3 & 6/241IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYAPPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABADELECTION PETITION NO. 3 OF 2024Narsingrao s/o. Nivruttirao UdgirkarAge 67 yrs., Occu. Business,R/o. White House, Degloor Road,Udgir, Dist. Latur – 413517.....PetitionerVersus1.Shivaji s/o. Bandappa Kalge,Age 54 yrs., Occu. Medical Practitioner,R/o. C/o. Laxmi Netralya & Maternity Home,Opposite to Government Veterinary Hospital,Zilla Parishad Office, Nataji Nagar,Latur, Tq. Latur, District Latur,Maharashtra State – 413512.2.The Returning Officer,41- Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency,District Latur.3.The District Election Officer,District Collectorate, Latur,District – Latur.4.The Chief Election Commission of India,Office of the Chief Election Commission,Nirvachan Sadan, Ashok Road,New Delhi – 110001.5.Sudhakar s/o. Tukaram Shrangare,Age 62 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. House No. 332, Gharni,Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur,At present Shankar – Shubham Nath Nagar,Latur, Tq. Latur, Dist. Latur – 413512.6.Atithi Khanderao Suryawanshi,Age 46 yrs., Occu. Household,R/o. 45-K, Nath Nagar, Nalanda Housing Society,Surywanshi Nagar, LaturTq. Latur, Dist. Latur 413512.7.Alte Vishwanath Mahadev,Age 41 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. Siddharth Society Road No. 5, EP 3 & 6/242Nanded Road, Latur,Tq. Latur, Dist. Latur – 413512.8.Kamant Machhhindra Gunwantrao,Age 64 yrs., Occu. Business,R/o. Punyaji Niwas, Dr. SanjeevReddy Colony, Degloor Road,Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur – 413517.9.Abhang Gangaram Surywanshi,Age 51 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. At Ambegao Post Gurnal,Tq. Devani, Dist. Latur.10.Dattu Sopan Narsinge,Age 52 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,R/o. Siddeshwar Nagar, Malvati Road, Latur,Tq. Latur, Dist. Latur – 413512.11. Deepak Chandrabhan Kedar,Age 39 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. Near Dhoot Hospital, Chikalthana, Aurangabad,Tq. Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.12.Umesh Ambadas Kamble,Age 28 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,R/o. Laxmi Niwas, in front of MunicipalCorporation, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.13.Bansode Raghunath Waghoji,Age 57 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. Pavan Colony, Nath Nagar,Latur, Tq. Latur, Dist. Latur.14.Bharat Hariba Nanaware,Age 61 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. Siddharth Housing Society,Nanded Road, Latur,Tq. Latur, Dist. Latur – 413512.15.Shrikant Baburao Hoval,Age 42 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. Patharevasti Loni,Tq. Haveli, Dist. Pune- 412201.16.Pravin Madhav Johare,Age 38 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,R/o. At post Hangarga,Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
Legal Reasoning
EP 3 & 6/2413school admission register is enclosed at Exh. E.(d)It is stated that caste of Bandappa Mahalingappa Kalge(father of respondent No. 1) is not mentioned in the PahaniPatrak of village Ankulga (Rani) for the year 1953-54 and 1955 to1960 and the copies of Pahani Patra are enclosed as Exh. Fcollectively. (e)It is stated that the castes of other people are notmentioned in the form of Gaon Namuna Number 13 of villageAnkulga (Rani), but caste of only Bandappa Mahalingappa Kalge,father of respondent No. 1 was mentioned in it later on. The copyof Gaon Namuma Number 13 is enclosed as Exh. G. (f)It is also stated that the respondent No.1/returnedcandidate is habitual in obtaining such fake caste certificates.Respondent No. 1 had obtained the false caste certificate of “MalaJangam” dated 14.7.1986 from Executive Magistrate, Nilanga.The same was rejected by the then Caste Verification Committee,Pune. He had preferred appeal before the DivisionalCommissioner, Aurangabad and he was successful in appeal.However, the said order was cancelled by the Government inreview. Thereafter, he filed writ petition in this Court which wasallowed on the ground of jurisdiction without touching the meritsof the matter. The copies of caste certificate, judgment of appealand judgment of this Court in writ petition are enclosed as Exh.“H” Collectively. 9)As regards Election Petition No. 6/2024 is concerned, ground is taken EP 3 & 6/2414in para No. 7 that the respondent No. 1 has obtained caste certificate of“Mala Jangam” caste and certificate of validity by applying fraudulent waysand means by suppressing the reality and true facts from the Caste ScrutinyCommittee. It is also submitted that respondent No. 1 has given falseaffidavits and declaration before the Returning Officer and Returning Officerhas erroneously accepted the nomination of respondent No. 1. It is alsostated at para 17 of the petition that that the returned candidate hasobtained caste certificate of his daughter Shreya Shivaji Kalge by producingall the fake documents. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners haveraised objection before the Returning Officer, which was rejected. It issubmitted that the cause of action arose to file the election petition on20.4.2024 when the Returning Officer rejected the objection of thepetitioners and when the District Caste Scrutiny Committee Latur hadrejected the complaint of petitioner No. 5 on 11.6.2024. It is also stated inthe petition that the petitioners have challenged the caste validity certificateof respondent No. 1 by filing a separate writ petition bearing No. 7868/2024before the Division bench of this Court and notice is issued in that matter on31.7.2024. 10)Mr. U.L. Telgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioners in ElectionPetition No. 6/2024 has relied upon paragraph No. 11 the judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sobha Hymavathi Devi Vs. SettiGangadhara Swamy and Ors. reported as (2005) 2 SCC 244 and submitsthat the caste certificate and validity certificate could be considered as thepiece of evidence in the present election petition and on the basis of theevidence produced in the election petition, the caste status of the EP 3 & 6/2415respondent No. 1/returned candidate that he does not belong to category ofScheduled Caste namely “Mala Jangam” be declared.11)On the basis of above submissions and documents, the petitioners inboth the petitions submit that notice be issued to the respondents and it beheld that the respondent No. 1 was not qualified to contest the assemblyelection from the constituency reserved for scheduled caste category as therespondent No. 1 does not belong to category of scheduled caste as claimedby him in his declaration in the nomination form.12)Considering the submissions raised, this Court has to decide whetherthe petitioners have made out case for issuance of notice or the electionpetitions need to be rejected outright under Order VII, Rule 11 of CivilProcedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short) r/w. Section 83of the R.P. Act.13)To understand the nature of ‘caste certificate’ and ‘caste validitycertificate’ issued by the competent authority and the Caste ScrutinyCommittee under the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta jatis), Nomatic Tribes, Other Backward Classes andSpecial Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2000 Act’ forshort), reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil V. Commissioner, TribalDevelopment reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 and Mah. Adiwasi ThakurJamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra decided on 24th EP 3 & 6/2416March 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 2502/2022. In case of Madhuri Patil citedsupra, the the Supreme Court has noted that it was necessary to streamlinethe procedure for issuance of social status certificate, their scrutiny andtheir approval. The need to lay down procedure guidelines was felt as inseveral cases where it was noticed that candidates on the basis of falsesocial status certificates obtained admissions to educational institutionswhich necessarily had the effect of depriving admissions to genuinecandidates belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. In the caseof Madhuri Patil (supra), the Supreme Court at para 13 has held that :-“13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wronglyobtained on the basis of false social status certificatenecessarily has the effect of depriving the genuineScheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates asenjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred onthem by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are alsodenied admission to educational institutions or appointmentsto office or posts under a State for want of social statuscertificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falselygained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles incompletion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It istrue that the applications for admission to educationalinstitutions are generally made by a parent, since on thatdate many a time the student may be a minor. It is theparent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming falsestatus certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that thecertificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and withutmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it isnecessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance ofsocial status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval,which may be the following:1. The application for grant of social status certificate shallbe made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and DeputyCollector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall beissued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk orMandal level.2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may EP 3 & 6/2417be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by acompetent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer withparticulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community,parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the placefrom which he originally hails from and other particulars asmay be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by theScrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months inadvance before seeking admission into educationalinstitution or an appointment to a post.4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee ofthree officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary orany officer higher in rank of the Director of the departmentconcerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/TribalWelfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and(III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who hasintimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of thesocial status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes,the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge inidentifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groupsof tribes or tribal communities.5. Each Directorate should constitute a Vigilance Cellconsisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police inoverall charge and such number of Police Inspectors toinvestigate into the social status claims. The Inspector wouldgo to the local place of residence and original place fromwhich the candidate hails and usually resides or in case ofmigration to the town or city, the place from which heoriginally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personallyverify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed bythe candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be.He should also examine the school records, birthregistration, if any. He should also examine the parent,guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. orsuch other persons who have knowledge of the social statusof the candidate and then submit a report to the Directoratetogether with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma,in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiaranthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals,customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method ofburial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribalcommunities concerned etc. EP 3 & 6/24186. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from thevigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be“not genuine” or ‘doubtful’ or spurious or falsely or wronglyclaimed, the Director concerned should issue showcausenotice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officerto the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgementdue or through the head of the educational institutionconcerned in which the candidate is studying or employed.The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, ifany, would be made within two weeks from the date of thereceipt of 6the notice and in no case on request not morethan 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. Incase, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing andclaims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director onreceipt of such representation/reply shall convene thecommittee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairpersonwho shall give reasonable opportunity to thecandidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in supportof their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any otherconvenient mode may be published in the village or localityand if any person or association opposes such a claim, anopportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. Aftergiving such opportunity either in person or through counsel,the Committee may make such inquiry as it deemsexpedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objectionsraised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriateorder with brief reasons in support thereof.7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and foundto be genuine and true, no further action need be takenexcept where the report or the particulars given areprocured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and inthe latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para6 be followed.8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to theparents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appearbefore the Committee with all evidence in his or theirsupport of the claim for the social status certificates.9. ……………….10. …………….. EP 3 & 6/241911. The order passed by the Committee shall be final andconclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226of the Constitution.12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authorityshould lie.”(emphasis added)” 14)In the case of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti(supra), it is observed that so far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned,with effect from 18.10.2011 the 2000 Act was brought into force. The 2000Act contains a very elaborate mechanizm for regulating the issue andverification of caste certificates to persons belonging to various categoriesof backward classes. A two level mechanizm is provided. The first level is ofthe Competent Authority issuing a caste certificate which is valid onlysubject to verification and grant of validity certificate by the ScrutinyCommittee constituted under the 2000 Act. Power is vested in the ScrutinyCommittee constituted under section 6 to verify the correctness of the castecertificates issued by the Competent Authority. Section 9 confers powers onthe Competent Authority and the Scrutiny Committee of a civil court ofsummoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, requiring thediscovery and inspection of documents, receiving evidence on affidavits,requisitioning any public record or a copy thereof from any Court or officeand issuing Commissions for the examination of witnesses or production ofdocuments. Elaborate rules are formulated under the 2000 Act known asThe Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verificationof) Certificate Rules, 2003 Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2003 Rules’for short). Rule 10 and Rule 12 of the 2003 Rules provide for theconstitution of Vigilance Cells to assist the Scrutiny Committees for EP 3 & 6/2420Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively for conducting anenquiry. Rules 2003 also provide powers to Scrutiny Committee to conductaffinity test.15)In Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti cited supra, theHon’ble Supreme Court in para Nos. 15, 17 and 18 has held as under :-“15. The law contemplates very detailed scrutiny of the casteclaim by the Scrutiny Committee. If both the CompetentAuthority and the Caste Scrutiny Committee were to makethe same degree of scrutiny and detailed enquiry into casteclaims, the very object of the two-tier scrutiny will befrustrated. Section 8 provides that the burden of proving acaste claim before the Competent Authority and the ScrutinyCommittee is on the applicant. For discharging the saidburden before the Competent Authority, it is enough if theapplicant produces prima facie material to show that hiscaste claim is genuine. The burden put by Section 8 on theapplicant to prove his caste status before the ScrutinyCommittee is much higher than the burden which he isrequired to discharge before the Competent Authority.16. ……17. Section 6 deals with the procedure to be followed by theCaste Scrutiny Committee for verification of castecertificates. Sub-section (4) of Section 6 lays down that theScrutiny Committee shall follow the procedure as laid downby the Rules framed under the 2000 Act. Rule 4 of the STRules lays down the procedure to be followed by theCompetent Authority. We must note that under Rule 10, aprovision has been made for constituting a Vigilance Cell toassist the Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny Committee inconducting an enquiry. As noted earlier, the Vigilance Cellconsists of Police Officers of three different ranks as providedtherein and a Research Officer.Rule 11 provides details of the documents the applicantmust submit to verify the Scheduled Tribes certificate. Sub-rules 2 and 3 of Rule 11 read thus: EP 3 & 6/2421“11.(1)…………………….(2) The applicant shall submit the following documentswith his application for verification of his Scheduled TribeCertificate :—(a)Original documents.—(i) the original Scheduled Tribe Certificate of the applicant alongwith one attested copy, (ii) an affidavit in Form F;(b) Documents of which, only attested copies are to be submitted in respect of applicant—(i)Primary School leaving certificate.(ii) An extract of school admission register.(iii) An extract of birth register.(c) Documents in respect of father,—(i)An extract of birth register.(ii)Primary school leaving certificate.(iii)Extract of school admission register.(iv)Scheduled Tribe Certificate.(v)If a father is in service, the extract of the pagesof the service record (book) which contain religion and tribe entry.(vi)If a father is illiterate, the primary school leaving certificate of the real elderly blood relatives of the paternal side of the applicant and extract of school admission register.(d) Other documents,—(i)Revenue record like, birth register, extract of 7/12, SaleDeed etc. EP 3 & 6/2422(ii)Any other relevant documentsin support of hisScheduled Tribe claim.(iii)Affidavits of the near relativeswhose Validity Certificates are submitted in support of the Scheduled Tribe claim of theapplicant.(3)The applicant shall submit original certificates anddocuments for verification whenever required by theScrutiny Committee.18. Rule 12 lays down the procedure to be followed by theScrutiny Committee. It contains a provision regardingforwarding a case to the Vigilance Cell to hold an enquiry.Rule 12 reads thus:“12. Procedure to be followed by Scrutiny Committee.(1) On receipt of the application, the Scrutiny Committeeor a person authorised by it shall scrutinise the application,verify the information and documents furnished by theapplicant, and shall acknowledge the receipt of theapplication. The Member Secretary shall register theapplication, received for verification, in the-registerprescribed by the Chairman.(2) If the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with thedocumentary evidence produced by the applicant theScrutiny Committee shall forward the applications to theVigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and otherenquiry.(3) The Vigilance Officer shall go to the local place ofresidence and original place from which the applicant hailsand usually resides, or in case of migration, to the town orcity or place from which he originally hailed from. (4) The Vigilance Officer shall personally verify and collect allthe facts about the social status claimed by the applicant orhis parents or the guardian, as the case may be.(5) The Vigilance Cell shall also examine the parents orguardian or the applicant for the purpose of verification oftheir Tribe, of the applicant. EP 3 & 6/2423(6) After completion of the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell shallsubmit its report to the Scrutiny Committee who will in turnscrutinise the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell.(7)In case the report of Vigilance Cell is in favour of theapplicant, and if the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied that theclaim of the applicant is genuine and true, the ScrutinyCommittee may issue the validity certificate. The validitycertificate shall be issued in Form G.(8)If the Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of theVigilance Cell report and other documents available, is notsatisfied about the claim of the applicant, the Committeeshall issue a show cause notice to the applicant and alsoserve a copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer byregistered post with acknowledgment due. A copy shall alsobe sent to the Head of the Department concerned, ifnecessary. The notice shall indicate that the representationor reply, if any, should be made within fifteen days from thedate of receipt of the notice and in any case not more thanthirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. In case theapplicant requests for adjournment or extension of the time-limit, reasonable time, may be granted.(9) (a) After personal hearing if the ScrutinyCommittee is satisfied regarding the genuineness of theclaim, Validity Certificate shall be issued in Form G.(b) After personal hearing, if the Scrutiny Committeeis not satisfied about the genuineness of the claim andcorrectness of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate, it shall passan order of cancellation and of confiscation of the Certificateand communicate the same to the Competent Authority fortaking necessary entries in the register and for furthernecessary action. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate shall thenbe stamped as " cancelled and confiscated".”16)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur JamatSwarakshan Samiti (supra) has observed that it is not possible toexhaustively lay down in which cases the Scrutiny Committee must refer thecase to Vigilance Cell and it is observed that in the case of Madhuri Patil EP 3 & 6/2424cited supra, it lays down that the documents of the pr-constitution periodshowing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors have got the highestprobative value and if the applicant is able to produce authentic andgenuine documents of the pre-constitution period showing that he belongsto a tribal community, there is no reason to discard his claim as prior to1950, there were no reservations provided to the tribes included in the STorder and in such cases the reference to Vigilance Cell is will not berequired. The Supreme Court has also held that for verification of the socialstatus as contemplated by sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of the 2003 Rules, in agiven case, affinity test can be resorted to by the Vigilance Cell. 17)The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the scheme of the2000 Act and the 2003 Rules provides for the Scrutiny Committee holdingan enquiry on the caste claim of the applicant, if necessary, after examiningthe applicant on oath, recording evidence of witnesses and calling fordocuments and records etc., the Scrutiny Committee is expected to recordreasons for granting and rejecting the prayer for issue of caste validitycertificates and thus, the Scrutiny Committee has all the trappings of aquasi-judicial authority. 18)Thus, the Competent Authority and the Caste Scrutiny Committeehave exclusive jurisdiction to grant caste certificate and grant validity to thecaste certificate under the 2000 Act. 19)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Bilaspur Vs. AjitP.K. Jogi and Ors, reported as (2011) 10 SCC 357 has held that having EP 3 & 6/2425regard to sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338 of the Constitution ofIndia, the S.C. and S.T. Commission could have right to entertain andinquire into the specific complaints about deprivation of any rights andsafeguards of Scheduled Tribes. However, the Commissioner on receipt ofcomplaint cannot decide the tribe status of an individual and theCommission can refer the matter to the concerned authority i.e. ScrutinyCommittee for disposal in accordance with the scheme formulated by theSupreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil cited supra for verification of thecaste/tribe and for determination of the caste/tribe status. 20)It is apparent that the Caste Scrutiny Committee conducts exhaustiveenquiry in to the status of the individual. It is not mentioned in the presentelection petitions, whether all the documents which the petitioners haverelied upon were available before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. This is aserious lapse in pleading of material facts in Election Petition. However, oralstatement is made by Dr. Jayshree Patil, learned advocate for the petitionerin Election Petition No. 3/2024 that all the documents produced in theelection petition challenging the caste status of returnedcandidate/respondent No. 1 are received from the Caste ScrutinyCommittee. 21)The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh BhimashankarUmbarje and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. in Writ Petition No.5364/2023 decided on 3.5.2023 has held that the order passed by theScrutiny Committee under the 2000 Act shall be final and shall not bechallenged before any authority or court except the High Court under Article EP 3 & 6/2426226 of the Constitution of India. Section 15 of the 2000 Act provides bar ofjurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide such matters. Section 15 providesthat no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain, to continue or todecide any suit or proceeding or shall pass any decree or order or executewholly or partially any decree or order, if the claim involved in such suit orproceeding, or if the passing of such decree or order or if such executionwould in any way be contrary to the provisions of the 2000 Act. In the caseof Rakesh cited supra, the Division Bench of this Court held that the schemeof the 2000 Act would reveal that it would be the exclusive jurisdiction ofthe Caste Scrutiny Committee to consider the application for a caste validitycertificate. The Division Bench has also held that a ‘caste certificate’ iscertainly not a ‘caste validity certificate’, as issuance of a caste validitycertificate is an independent exercise to be undertaken by the CasteScrutiny Committee by exercising its quasi-judicial powers. The DivisionBench of this Court in the case of Rakesh cited supra also held that castevalidity certificate confers substantive rights on the person holding suchcertificate, by virtue of which a right in rem is conferred on such person onthe basis of such caste validity certificate. 22)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Dixit“Ghorewala’ Vs. Rajeev Gandhi reported in AIR 1986 SC 1534, whileconsidering the election petition on the ground that the respondent hadceased to be an Indian citizen and, therefore, was disqualified to be acandidate, has observed at para 5 and 12 as under :-“5.As regards ground No. (i) it has to be observed thatthe High Court was in error in construing that it could decidethe question whether a person had ceased to be an Indian EP 3 & 6/2427citizen. The High Court was of the view that since in anelection petition the High Court is called upon to decidewhether the returned candidate was disqualified to bechosen as a member of the Lok Sabha it was open to theHigh Court by virtue of that power to decide the questionwhether a candidate had ceased to be an Indian citizennotwithstanding the statutory bar contained in S. 9 (2) ofthe Citizenship Act, 1955. 6.…….12. In the circumstances it is difficult to agree with theview of the High Court that when a question whether aperson has acquired the citizenship of another country arisesbefore the High Court in an election petition filed under theRepresentation of the People Act, 1951 it would havejurisdiction to decide the said question notwithstanding theexclusive jurisdiction conferred on the authority prescribedunder Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 to decide thequestion. Whatever may be the proceeding in which thequestion of loss of citizenship of a person arises forconsideration, the decision in that proceeding on the saidquestion should depend upon the decision of the authorityconstituted for determining the said question under Section9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.”The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad Dixit (supra) has heldthat the question of loss of citizenship of a person arises for consideration inan election petition it would dependent upon the decision of the authorityconstituted for determining the said question under section 9(2) of theCitizenship Act, 1955 and rejected the argument that in election petition theCourt can consider the issue.23)This Court in the case of Ishvarbhai Jaganji Naik Vs. The ReturningOfficer and Ors. reported in 1991 (1) SLJ 36 (Bombay)[MANU/MH/1071/1990] has held that section 41 of Evidence Act is not EP 3 & 6/2428exhaustive of the types of cases covered by it. The category of casesdeclaring "Status" are on the increase. This is particularly so when the trendis to, set up courts of exclusive Jurisdiction. Judgments of Courts/Tribunalsmust receive respect and must be held binding on all Courts/Tribunals whocannot try those questions. They must necessarily be binding on partieswho are not necessary/proper parties in the proceedings before theCourt/Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, applying the principles laid down in the case of Ishvarbhai(supra), section 41 (Section 35 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) of theEvidence Act will apply to the judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee,granting validity the to the caste certificate of the returned candidate.24)In the judgments of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti(supra) and Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje (supra), the Hon’ble SupremeCourt and the Division Bench of this High Court held that the Caste ScrutinyCommittee has power to decide the caste claim of a person, validating thecaste certificate in exercise of its quasi judicial function and grantsdeclaration as to the status of the person whether he belongs to theparticular caste or tribe. The said status cannot be challenged in the CivilCourt as it is exclusive domain of the Scrutiny Committee to decide thestatus of the person holding the caste certificate. 25)Having dealt with the provisions of the 2000 Act, I now turn to therelevant provisions of the R.P. Act, 1951. The relevant provisions are quotedas below :- EP 3 & 6/2429“4. Qualification for membership of the House of the people.-A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat inthe House of the People unless-(a)in the case of a seat reserved for the ScheduledCastes in any State, he is a member of any of the ScheduledCastes, whether of that State or of any other State, and isan elector for any Parlimentary constituency;33.Presentation of nomination paper and requirementsfor a valid nomination.- (1)…….(2)In a constituency where any seat is reserved, acandidate shall not be deemed to be qualified to be chosento fill that seat unless his nomination paper contains adeclaration by him specifying the particular caste or tribe ofwhich he is a member and the area in relation to which thatcaste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or, as the case may be, aScheduled Tribe of the State. 36.Scrutiny of nominations.- (1)………(2)The returning officer shall then examine thenomination papers and shall decide all objections which maybe made to any nomination, and may, either on suchobjection or on his own motion, after such summary inquiry,if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on anyof the following grounds :-(a)that on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominationsthe candidate either is not qualified or is disqualified forbeing chosen to fill the seat under any of the followingprovisions that may be applicable, namely :-Articles 84, 102, 173 and 191 (part II of this act andsection 4 and 14 of the Government of Union Terrtories Act,1963 (20 of 1963); or (b)that there has been a failure to comply with any of theprovisions of section 33 or section 34; or EP 3 & 6/2430(c)that the signature of the candidate or the proposer onthe nomination paper is not genuine. 100. Grounds for declaring election to be void .- (1) Subjectto the provisions of sub-section (2), if the High Court is ofthe opinion - (a)that on the date of his election a returned candidatewas not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill theseat under the Constitution or this Act or the Government ofUnion Territories Act, 1963; or(b)……..(d)that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns areturned candidate, has been materially affected—(i)by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or(ii)by any corrupt practice committed in the interests ofthe returned candidate 6 [by an agent other than hiselection agent], or(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of anyvote or the reception of any vote which is void, or(iv)by any non-compliance with the provisions of theConstitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders madeunder this Act, the High Court shall declare the election ofthe returned candidate to be void.26)It is to be noted that the R.P. Act or the Conduct of Election Rules1961 does not provide for production of caste certificate and the castevalidity certificate along with the nomination form. Section 33 (2) providesfor declaration to be made by the candidate contesting any reserved seat,specifying the particular caste or tribe of which he is a member and the areain relation to which that caste or tribe is a scheduled caste or as the casemay be, a Scheduled Tribe of the State. EP 3 & 6/243127)In the nomination filed by the respondent No. 1/returned candidate,which is at page 108 of the Election Petition No. 3/2024, it is mentionedthat the returned candidate has not supplied caste certificate and that hehas to furnish caste certificate at the commencement of the scrutiny at11.00 a.m. on 20.4.024. At page 121 of the Election Petition No. 3/2024, itis seen that on 20.4.2024 the Returning Officer has passed the followingorder :-“Nomination accepted. Objections rejected. Seperatesummary enquiry order is enclosed herewith.”28)In the Election Petitions above summary enquiry order of theReturning Officer is not enclosed. All the documents which were availablebefore the Scrutiny Committee while validating the claim of the petitioneron 22.2.2019 are not mentioned/produced in the Election Petition No.3/2024 or Election Petition No. 6/2024.29)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satrucharla Vijaya RamaRaju Vs. Nimmaka Jaya Raju & Ors., reported in MANU/SC/2505/2005[(2006) 1 SCC 212] has held that the decision in election petition regardingstatus of the caste of an individual is not a judgment in rem and everysubsequent election gives rise to a fresh cause of action. In para 10, it isobserved that :-“10. …... It is not an action for establishing the status of aperson. It is not an action initiated by a person to have hisstatus established or his jural relationship to the worldgenerally established, to borrow the language of SpencerBower. No doubt in E.P. 13 of 1983, the question waswhether the election petitioner therein who alleged that the EP 3 & 6/2432appellant before us was not qualified to contest as acandidate belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, in a constituencyreserved for that tribe and to that extent, having relationshipto the status of the appellant. In such an action under theRepresentation of the People Act, 1951 what is decided iswhether the election petitioner had succeeded in establishingthat the successful candidate belonged to a caste orcommunity, that was not included in the Scheduled TribesOrder.”30)Considering the law laid discussed in the above referred judgments itis to be noted that grant of caste certificate is exclusive domain of the CasteScrutiny Committee after the enactment of the 2000 Act. The Civil Court’sjurisdiction is barred. Since the Caste Scrutiny Committee has exclusivejurisdiction to decide the caste status of an individual as regards the casteor tribe claim, this Court in the election petition would not render alternatefinding as regards the caste of the returned candidate unless case is madeout that the judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, granting validity tothe caste certificate of the returned candidate is not issued by thecompetent authority or is vitiated by fraud. The material produced in theelection petition, even if accepted as it is cannot lead to the conclusion thatthe returned candidate does not belong to ‘Mala Jangam’, a Scheduled casteas the caste validity certificate is granted to him after following the dueprocess of law by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.31)The next issue that arises for consideration is whether this Court canreject the election petitions on the ground that the election petitions arebereft of material facts as regards the pleadings in the petitions qua EP 3 & 6/2433documents available before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and how thejudgment of the Scrutiny Committee is vitiated by fraud if the documentswere already before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Caste ScrutinyCommittee has rendered the judgment on caste status of returnedcandidate. 32)The law on the subject of rejection of election petition at the outsethas been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KarimUddin Barbhuiya Vs. Animul Haque Laskar & Ors. reported as (2024) 4S.C.R. 523, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15 has observed asunder :-“15. The legal position with regard to the non-compliance ofthe requirement of Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act and therejection of Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11, CPChas also been regurgitated recently by this Court in case ofKanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. A. Santhana Kumar and Others(supra): -“28. The legal position enunciated in afore-stated cases maybe summed up as under: —i.Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act, 1951 mandates that anElection petition shall contain a concise statement ofmaterial facts on which the petitioner relies. If materialfacts are not stated in an Election petition, the same isliable to be dismissed on that ground alone, as the casewould be covered by Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 ofthe Code.ii.The material facts must be such facts as would afford abasis for the allegations made in the petition andwould constitute the cause of action, that is every factwhich it would be necessary for the plaintiff/petitionerto prove, if traversed in order to support his right to thejudgment of court. Omission of a single material factwould lead to an incomplete cause of action and thestatement of plaint would become bad. EP 3 & 6/2434iii.Material facts mean the entire bundle of facts whichwould constitute a complete cause of action. Materialfacts would include positive statement of facts as alsopositive averment of a negative fact, if necessary.iv.In order to get an election declared as void underSection 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Electionpetitioner must aver that on account of non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or ofthe Act or any rules or orders made under the Act, theresult of the election, in so far as it concerned thereturned candidate, was materially affected.v.The Election petition is a serious matter and it cannotbe treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it givento a person who uses it as a handle for vexatiouspurpose.vi.An Election petition can be summarily dismissed on theomission of a single material fact leading to anincomplete cause of action, or omission to contain aconcise statement of material facts on which thepetitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, inexercise of the powers under Clause (a) of Rule 11 ofOrder VII CPC read with the mandatory requirementsenjoined by Section 83 of the RP Act.””33)The Supreme Court in the judgment of Karim Uddin (supra) has heldthat election petition can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of CivilProcedure Code if the material facts are not stated in the election petition.Material facts must be such facts as would afford a basis for the allegationsmade in the petition and would constitute a cause of action. Every factwhich it would be necessary for the plaintiff/petitioner to prove, if traversedin order to support his right to the judgment of court. Omission of a singlematerial fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and the statementof plaint would become bad. EP 3 & 6/243534)The material facts mean the entire bundle of facts which wouldconstitute a complete cause of action. Material facts would include positivestatement of facts as also positive averment of a negative fact, if necessary.35)The election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be treatedlightly or in a fanciful manner nor it is given to a person who uses it as ahandle for vexatious purpose. An election petition can be summarilydismissed on the omission of a single material fact leading to an incompletecause of action, or omission to contain a concise statement of material factson which the petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, in exerciseof the powers under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII Civil Procedure Coderead with the mandatory requirements enjoined by section 83 of the R.P.Act. 36)Considering the law as noted above, it is to be required to be notedthat the returned candidate has caste certificate and a caste validitycertificate in his favour granted by the quasi judicial authority i.e. by theCaste Scrutiny Committee. The caste certificate and validity certificateswere produced before the Returning Officer at the stage of scrutiny. Thereasoned order of the Returning Officer rejecting the objections is notannexed with the petition. The election petitioners have producedincomplete documents which were before the Caste Scrutiny Committee onthe basis of which they seek declaration that the respondent No. 1 does notbelong to Scheduled Caste Category as claimed by him as “Mala Jangam”.This Court in absence of pleading of material facts as to how the judgmentof the caste validity certificate is obtained by fraud cannot entertain the EP 3 & 6/2436present election petitions as the Caste Scrutiny Committee under the 2000Act has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of caste certificategranted in favour of the returned candidate. Enquiry cannot be conducted inthe status of the returned candidate and he be declared as not belonging to“Mala Jangam” community scheduled caste as the returned candidate has acaste validity certificate in his favour by the Caste Scrutiny Committeewhich has exclusive jurisdiction to grant caste validity certificate.37)The documents produced by the petitioners even if accepted as theyare, no findings can be rendered that the returned candidate does notbelong to castge “Mala Jangam” and negate the caste validity certificategranted to returned candidate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Castevalidity of caste certificate is granted under the 2000 Act after an elaborateenquiry and is influenced by various factors i.e. pre-constitution perioddocuments etc. 38)On the basis of caste certificate and caste validity certificate it is notknown as to how the Returning officer could have rejected the claim of thereturning candidate as belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. In thecase cited by the petitioners in Election Petition No. 6/2024 i.e. SobhaHymavathi Devi supra is concerned, it relates to caste certificate and notwith caste validity certificate. As such, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has heldthat the caste certificate could be used as evidence in the Court andevidentiary value has to be assigned in the Court. 39)Relying upon the judgment of Ishvarbhai (supra), I have held at para EP 3 & 6/243722 that section 41 of the Evidence Act (Section 35 of Bharatiya SakshyaAdhiniyam) will apply to the judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee,granting validity the to caste certificate of the returned candidate. Thus, interms of section 44 of the Evidence Act (Section 38 of Bharatiya SakshyaAdhiniyam) r/w. Section 83 of R.P. Act, election petition must pleadmaterial facts as to how the judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee isvitiated by fraud moreso when the documents filed with the electionpetitioner were available before the Caste Scrutiny Committee.40)In view of the discussion made above, I deem it appropriate to holdthat the election petitions are bereft of material particulars as to how thejudgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee granting validity to the castecertificate of the returned candidate is vitiated by fraud and needs to beignored is not pleaded. Mere usage of words like ‘fraudulent’ and ‘fake’documents and production of some contra documents which would indicatethat the returned candidate does not belong to ‘Mala Jangam’ caste is notsufficient. Even an erronous decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee,granting validity to the caste certificate cannot be challenged in electionpetition. Election petition being the serious matter, no inquiry can becontinued in to the status of the respondent No. 1/returned candidate asthe candidate has a caste certificate and a caste validity certificate grantedby the Scrutiny Committee. The judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committeegranting declaration of caste status is a judgment in Rem. The status of theperson cannot be different from that granted by the Caste ScrutinyCommittee unless the judgment of Caste Scrutiny Committee granting thevalidity certificate is vitiated by fraud and has to be ignored.
Arguments
EP 3 & 6/24317.Panchshil Vikram Kamble,Age 41 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,Loha, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded.18.Shankar Hari Tadakhe,Age 63 yrs, Occu. Agriculture,R/o. Sahitya Samrat Annabhau Sathe Nagar,Near Bhairavnath Mandir,37/A, Aundhraod, Khadki,Pune – 411020.19.Amol Malu Hanmante,Age 28 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. At Post Kavthala,Tq. Devni, Dist. Latur.20.Adv. Kasbekar Shridhar Limbaji,Age 74 yrs., Occu. Lawyer,R/o. Survey No. 35/3/7,Dhankwadi, Gurudatttkrupa GruhnirmanSociety, Flat No. B-23, Mohan Nagar,Pune.21.Balaji Sheshrao Bansode,Age 35 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. At post Talegaon (Bho),Tq. Devni, Dist. Latur-413519.22.Bhikaji Gangaram Jadhav,Age 61 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. C/o. Narayan Tulshiram Kachave Guruji,Kokanga, Po. Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.23.Vikas Kondiba Shinde,Age 27 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. at Konali Dongar Post Mangrool,Tq. Jalkot, Dist. Latur.24. Lakhan Rajaram Kamble,Age 33 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. At Post. Bolegaon (Bu).,Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur.25.Balaji Tukaram Gaikwad,Age 51 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar,Room No. 1850, Sadhu T.L. Waswani Marg, Cuff Parafde, Colaba, Mumbai. EP 3 & 6/24426.Sudhakar Tukaram Suryawanshi,Age 56 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. c/o. KoralikarNiwas, Veer Fakira Chowk, Kahdegaon Road,Latur – 413512.27.Papita Raosaheb Randive,Age 43 yrs., Occu. Household,R/o. At Post Migarga, Tq. Ausa,Dist. Latur.28.Adv. Pradip S. Chincholikar,Age 43 yrs., Occu. Laywer,R/o. at Chincholi Bh. Post. Yelnur,Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.29.Mukesh Govindrao Ghodake,Age 33 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. Eqbal Chowk, Near Araft Maszeed,Latur, Dist. Latur.30.Pankaj Gopalrao Wakharadakar,Age 33 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,R/o. Sagar Niwas, Malhar Nagar,Nava Mondha, Kandhar,Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded-431714....Respondents...Dr. Jayshree Patil, Advocate for the petitioner....ANDELECTION PETITION NO. 6 OF 20241.Vishwanath s/o. Mahadeo Alte,Age 43 yrs., Occu. Business,R/o. Sonai Niwas, Road No. 15,Siddharth Housing Society,Nanded Road, Latur.2. Dattu s/o. Sopan Narsinge,Age 53 yrs., occu. Self Employed,R/o. Siddeshwar Nagar, Malwati Road,Latur, Dist. Latur.3.Bharat s/o. Hariba Nanaware,Age 60 yrs., Occu. Legal Practitioner,R/o. Road No. 12, Siddharth Housing Society,Nanded Road, Latur.4.Pravin s/o. Madhav Johare,Age 38 yrs., Occu. Legal Practitioner, EP 3 & 6/245R/o. At Post Hungarga, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.5.Vitthal s/o. Mahapurao Bhosle,Age 71 yrs., Occu. Pensioner,R/o. “Varsha”, Bank Colony,Vikram Nagar, Latur.....PetitionersVersus1.Dr. Kalge Shivaji Bandapp,Age 65 yrs., Occu. Medical Practitioner,R/o. Laxmi Netralaya Maternity Home,Netaji Nagar, Latur.2.Sudhakar s/o. Tukaram Shrangare,Age Adult, R/o. House No. 332, Gharni, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur,At present – Shankar-Shubham,Nath Nagar, Latur.3.Atithi Khanderao Surywanshi,Age Adult,R/o. 45K, Nath Nagar, NalandaHousing Society, Surywanshi Nagar, Latur.4.Ad. Kasbekar Shridhar Limbaji,Age Adult,R/o. Sy. No. 35/3/7, Dhanakwadi,Gurudutta Krupa Ghraha NirmanSociety, Flat No. B-23, MohanNagar, Pune – 411043.5.Kamant Machhindra Gunvantrao,Age Adult,R/o. “Punyai Niwas”, Dr. SanjivReddy Colony, Degloor Road,Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur-413517.6.Narsingrao Udgirkar,Age Adult,R/o. “White House”, Degloor Road,Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur-413517.7.Balaji Tukaram Gaikwad,Age Adult,R/o. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar,Room No. 1850, Sadhu T.L. WaswaniMarga, Kaf Pared, Kulaba, Mumbai-5. EP 3 & 6/2468.Bhikaji Gangaram Jadhav,Age Adult,R/o. C/o. Narayan Tulshiram KacchveGuruji, Kokanga, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur – 413515.9.Lakhan Rajaram Kamble,Age Adult,R/o. At Post Bolegaon (Bk),Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur.10.Vikas Kondiba Shinde,Age Adult,R/o. At Konali (Dongar), Post Manglur, Tq. Jalkot,Dist. Latur, Maharashtra-413532.11.Shankar Hari Tadakhe,Age Adult,R/o. Sahitya Samrat Annabhau SatheNagar, Near Bahiravnath Temple,37/A, Aundh Road, Khadki,Pune – 411020.12.Shrikant Baburao Hoval,Age Adult,R/o. Pathare Vasti, Loni Kalbhor,Tq. Haveli, Dist. Pune – 412201.13.Abhang Gangaram Suraywanshi,Age Adult,R/o. Ambegaon, Post Gurnal,Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.14.Amol Malu Hanmante,Age Adult, R/o. At Post Kawthala,Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.15.Umesh Ambadas Kamble,Age Adult,R/o. Laxmi Nivas, In front of M.C. School No. 5, Latur, Dist. Latur.16.Deepak Kedar,Age Adult, R/o. Near Dhoot Hospital,Chikalthana, Aurangabad.17.Papita Raosaheb Randive, EP 3 & 6/247Age Adult,R/o. At Post Morarga, Tq. Ausa,Dist. Latur.18.Pankaj Gopalrao Wakharadakar,Age Adult,R/o. Sagar Nivas, New Mondha,Kandhar, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded – 431714.19.Panchshil Vikram Kamble,Age Adult,R/o. Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Loha,Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded.20.Adv. Pradip S. Chincholikar,Age Adult,R/o. At Chincholi (Bhoyer)Post Yelnur, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.21.Bansode Raghunath Waghoji,Age Adult,R/o. Pavan Colony, Nath Nagar,Latur.22.Balaji Sheshrao Bansode,Age Adult,R/o. At Post Talegaon (Bho),Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur-413519.23.Mukesh Govindrao Ghodake,Age Adult,R/o. Ekbal Chowk, Near Arafat Masjeet, Latur, Dist. Latur.24.Sudhakar Tukaram Suryawanshi,Age Adult,R/o. C/o. Koralikar Nivas,Veer Fakira Chowk, Khadgaon Road,Latur – 413512.25.Returning Officer,Latur Parliamentary Constituency,Latur.26.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Department of SocialJustice, Mantralaya, Mumbai.27.District Caste Scrutiny Committee,Latur.....Respondents EP 3 & 6/248...Mr. Uttam Laxmanrao Telgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioners....CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATED : 10/09/2024JUDGMENT : 1)Election Petition Nos. 3 of 2024 and 6 of 2024 are filed, challengingthe election of respondent No. 1 – Shivaji Bandappa Kalge, the returnedcandidate from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency, State ofMaharashtra for the election held on 7.5.2024 on the ground of qualificationor disqualification of the returned candidate by contending that the returnedcandidate does not belong to the ‘Mala Jangam’ Scheduled Caste categoryas declared by him in his nomination papers. Both the petitions are takenup for hearing jointly in view of the provisions of section 86 (3) of theRepresentation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the R.P. Act’for short). 2)In Election Petition No. 3/2024, the petitioner seeks declaration thaton the date of election, the returned candidate/respondent No. 1 was notqualified to be chosen to fill the seat in the House of People from 41-Latur(SC) Parliamentary Constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste member orhe was not having requisite qualification within the meaning of Section 4 (a)of the R.P. Act, to be chosen to fill the seat in the House of People from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency. The petitioner also seeks declarationthat the election of respondent No.1/returned candidate has been materiallyaffected by the acceptance of his nomination along with his caste certificate,validity certificate, affidavit, declaration and nomination by the returning EP 3 & 6/249officer and as such, be declared void. Thus, the petitioner challengeselection of respondent No. 1/returned candidate on the grounds mentionedin section 100 (1)(a), 100 (1) (d) (i) & (iv) r/w. section 4 (a) of the R.P. Act.3)It is the case of the petitioner in Election Petition No. 3/2024 that therespondent No. 1 belongs to Hindu Jangam caste, at Sr. No. 58, which isrecognised as Other Backward Class under the Maharashtra GovernmentResolution Nos. (1) 1096/PK-48/MVK-5 dated 03.06.1986, (2) CBC1098/PK-185/OBC-5 dated 1.1.2001 and (3) CBC-14/2001/PK-232/MVK-5dated 1.6.2004. Respondent No. 1 is an elector for 41 Latur (SC)Parliamentary Constituency in Maharashtra State and his name is entered atSr. No. 973, in Part No. 157 of the elector roll for 238 – Nilanga AssemblyConstituency, comprised within 41 Latur Parliamentary Constituency inMaharashtra State. It is further case of the petitioner that petitioner andother respondent Nos. 5 to 30 have contested the election to the House ofPeople from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency in Maharashtra Statein which they all have lost the same whereas the respondent No. 1 has wonthe election by margin of 61881 votes. Respondent No. 1 belongs to theIndian National Congress party whereas petitioner belongs to VanchitBahujan Aghadi. 4)To substantiate the case, the petitioner has relied on followingdocuments :-(a)General Register of Zilla Parishad, Primary School of villageAnkulanga (Rani) at entry No. 324 wherein the caste ofrespondent No. 1 is shown to be Hindu (Jangam). The word ‘Mala’ EP 3 & 6/2410was subsequently added and there is also difference in the inkand handwriting. (b)One Chandrama Kashinath Kalge is cousin sister ofrespondent No. 1 and in the General Register of Zilla Parishad,Primary School of village Ankulga (Rani), at Sr. No. 51, her casteis shown to be Lingayat (Jangam) and it falls in Other BackwardClass.(c)One Lata Bai Bandappa Kalge is the real sister ofrespondent No.1 and her caste in the General Register of ZillaParishad, Primary School of village Ankulnga (Rani) is shown tobe Lingayat (Jangam), so also in her school leaving certificatedated 12.06.1974 she is shown to be Hindu Jangam, which isrecognized as Other Backward Class.(d)One Shankar Shivbas Kalge is real cousin brother ofrespondent and his caste is Jangam.(e)In the Khasara Pahani Patrak record i.e. Village NamunaNumber 13 of village Ankulnga (Rani) the caste of her real unclesby name Vadappa Mahalingappa, Kashinath Mahalingappa andVishwanath Mahalingappa was not shown to be caste of his fatherto be Mala Jangam.5)Brief history is given in Election Petition No. 3/2024 from para Nos.11 to 16 showing as to how the caste certificate was procured by therespondent No. 1. The Executive Magistrate, Tahsil Office, Nilanga hadissued caste certificate dated 14.7.1986 and on that basis the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nilanga had issued caste certificate dated 13.3.2013 in EP 3 & 6/2411favour of respondent No. 1 and thereafter validity certificate was receivedby respondent No. 1 on 22.2.2019, which is issued by the District CasteCertificate Scrutiny Committee, Latur. It is the case of the petitioner thatExecutive Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Officer had not called report fromVigilance Committee before issuance of caste certificate to respondent no. 1which is mandatory. Thus, it is submitted that the respondent No. 1 doesnot belong to the Scheduled Caste category as notified in the State ofMaharashtra and his election be declared as void. 6)The Election Petition No. 3/2024 has verification clause at page No.25, so also affidavit in support of election petition in Form No. 25 which hasalso verification at page No. 37-A and concise statement at page No. 38 ofthe petition.7)Dr. Jayshree Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner in ElectionPetition No. 3/2024 has relied upon paragraph Nos. 10, 11, 13 and 16 ofthe judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Rawale Vs.Damodar Tatyaba @ Dadasaheb & Anr. reported in (1994) 2 SCC 392 andcontends that a reasonable cause of action is said to mean a cause of actionwith some chances of success when only the allegations in the pleading areconsidered. But, so long as the claim discloses some cause of action orraises some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that thecase is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out. Thelearned counsel submits that even if she has very weak case, this Court hasto entertain the election petition and give an opportunity to the petitionerto substantiate his case. EP 3 & 6/24128)In the Election Petition No. 6/2024, the petitioners claim to bebelonging to scheduled caste category and challenges the election ofrespondent No. 1/returned candidate on similar grounds as mentioned inElection Petition No. 3/2024. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 contested the electionfrom different political parties and petition No. 5 is the voter. In support ofthe election petition, the petitioners have produced following documentsand stated as under :-(a)It is stated that respondent No. 1 has obtained castecertificate of “Mala Jangam” on 13.3.2014 from Sub DivisionalOfficer, Nilanga and validity certificate on 22.2.1019 from DistrictCaste Scrutiny Committee. It is stated that both the certificatesare obtained by applying fraudulent ways and means and bysuppression of reality and true facts. The copies are enclosed asExh. B collectively. (b)It is stated that Latabai Bandappa Kalge and NirmalaKashinathappa Kalge are the real sister and real cousin ofrespondent No. 1, respectively. Their caste is mentioned as HinduJangam in their respective school record. The copies of entries areenclosed as Exh. D. (c)It is stated that caste of respondent No.1 was mentioned asHindu Jangam in his school admission register of Zilla ParishadPrimary Schook, Ankulga Rani, however, respondent No. 1 hasgot added the word “Mala” later on with collusion of concernedauthority and it is seen that the word “Mala” is written in differenthand and ink and it is clear manipulation of record. The copy of
Decision
EP 3 & 6/243841)Thus, in view of the law laid down in the case of Karim Uddin (supra),the Election petition Nos. 3 and 6 of 2024 are liable to be dismissed interms of order 7, Rule 11 (a) of CPC as it does not disclose the cause ofaction. In view of the above, the election petitions are dismissed. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER J.]SSC/