THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.16343 of 2010 DT.11.11.2010 Between: Chittepu Shanker … Petitioner And Kadam Laxman & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Sri Ram Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 10: None appeared The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for issuance of certiorari to quash judgment, dated 29.06.2010, in O.P.No.3 of 2006, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, the Election Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, (for short ‘the Election Tribunal’). The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are summarized hereunder: In pursuance of the notification issued by the State Election Commission, elections for Gram Panchayats were held by the State in the year 2006. Sawnli is one such Gram Panchayat in Adilabad District, reserved for the candidates belonging to Backward Caste, for which, the elections were conducted. The petitioner and respondent No.1 contested for the post of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. The poll was held on 10.08.2006 and the petitioner, who secured 619 votes, was declared elected as Sarpanch, as against 371 votes secured by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, the unsuccessful candidate, filed O.P.No.3 of 2006 before the Election Tribunal. The challenge to the petitioner’s election was on the sole ground, namely, that the petitioner does not belong to Chittari caste, recognized as backward caste, but he belongs to Chittepu caste, which is a forward caste. The Election Tribunal has gone into the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by both the parties and has accepted the plea of respondent No.1 that the petitioner does not belong to Chittari caste, but he belongs to Chittepu caste and that therefore, he was not entitled to contest for the office of Sarpanch reserved for backward caste. The Election Tribunal has also incidentally held that even respondent No.1, at the relevant time, did not belong to backward caste and was equally ineligible to contest the elections. In the writ petition, the petitioner has raised a contention for the first time, which is purely a legal contention, that the Election Tribunal has erred in setting aside the petitioner’s election, despite the fact that he holds certificate, dated 02.07.2006, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kubeer. At the hearing, Sri S.Sri Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Election Tribunal while appreciating evidence has eschewed from consideration, relevant material and placed reliance on irrelevant material. However, he has put forth his main contention that the Election Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in delving into the social status of the petitioner, which amounts to invalidating the community certificate issued by the competent authority under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issuance of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in P.Aruna Devi v. Election Authority-cum-Commissioner, Adoni Municipality and others[1] a n d Andugula Vijayalakshmi, Varahapatnam, Kaikaluru Mandal, Krishna District v. District Collector, Krishna and others[2]. Opposing the above contentions, Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submitted that while the Election Tribunal cannot go into the genuineness of a Community Certificate issued under the Act, it can certainly go into the social status of the elected candidate and that therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no relevance to the facts of this case. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment i n Peedika Rajanna Dora v. Rajendra Prathap Bhanj Deo and another[3], in support of his submission. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. If this Court accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Election Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the social status of the elected candidate by travelling beyond the community certificate, it would not be necessary for this Court to examine on merits as to whether the conclusions arrived at by the Election Tribunal on the petitioner’s social status is legally sustainable or not. Therefore, the short but important question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether it is permissible for the Election Tribunal to enquire into the social status of the petitioner? It is not in dispute that Ex.R8, Xerox copy of Community, Nativity & Birth Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kubeer on 02.07.2006, has certified the petitioner’s caste as Chittari and his social status as BC. I n P.Aruna Devi (1 supra), the Election Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 has set aside the election of the Chairman of Adoni Municipal Council, which was reserved for Scheduled Castes (Women) on the ground that the elected candidate does not belong to the Scheduled Caste, but to Indian Christianity (BC). The main contention canvassed in the writ petition filed against the said judgment was that issuance of caste certificates and enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the same are governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and that the Act being a self contained Code excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts on any of those aspects and that therefore, it was not open to the Election Tribunal to undertake an enquiry into the social status of the elected candidate. On analysis of the various provisions of the Act and its scheme, this Court has held as under: “If we examine the issue involved in the present case with reference to these principles, it is evident that the competent authority prescribed under the Act and the Rules had issued the Caste Certificates to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent did not invoke the machinery under the Act for cancellation of the same by the time she filed the O.P. Unless it is pleaded that the authority that issued the Certificate to the petitioner did not have the jurisdiction, or it is pleaded that the occasion for the authority to issue the certificate to the petitioner does not exist, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court continued to exist. If at all anything, the facts pleaded by the 3rd respondent constituted the cause of action for her to move the superior authority created under the Act and the Rules, to cancel the certificates issued to the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the existence of unequivocal provisions in the form of Section 17 and the absence of any factor, scuttling the operation of the exclusionary clause, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the civil court continued to exist to decide the correctness or otherwise of the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner.” In an identical case to the above-noted case, this Court in Andugula Vijayalakshmi (2 supra) which had an occasion to refer to and relied upon the judgment in P.Aruna Devi (1 supra), has undertaken an in depth examination of the relevant provisions of the Act and also of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and held at paras-27 to 31 and 34 as under: “On an interactive analysis of the provisions of the 1993 and 1994 Acts, it is apparent that the adjudication of election disputes is consecrated to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the 1994 Act and all disputes with regard to community certificate issued under the provisions of the 1993 Act is consecrated to the hierarchy of authorities – primary, appellate and revisional, enumerated under the provisions of the 1993 Act. Such exclusive consecration of jurisdiction also operates as a pro tanto exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts under the provisions of the CPC. Section 3 of the 1993 Act specifically enacts that the benefits available to a person belonging to the enumerated Castes or Tribes in respect of which a community certificate could be issued and has been issued include contesting for elective posts in any local authority or Co-operative institution. Sec.5 of this Act enumerates the forum and procedure including that for making of a complaint for the purpose of obtaining cancellation of a false community certificate, of any person, Secs.7 and 8 of this Act contain provisions for appeal, review and revision against any order including an order of issue of community certificate which is considered adverse to any interested person. Sec.12 of the 1993 Act enacts sanctions including penalties for securing of an appointment to an elective post of any local authority or Co-operative Society on the basis of a false caste certificate without belonging to such caste. The sanctions include conviction. Sec.13 also enacts penalties for issuance of false community certificate and Sec.14 for abettors of offences punishable under the Act. Sec.15 provides that offences should be tried summarily and by a Judicial First Class Magistrate. In the light of the provisions of the 1993 Act the conclusion is irresistible that the entirety of jurisdiction, power and authority regarding adjudication of any disputes relating to a community certificate issued by or under its presents or saved thereunder, is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the provisions of Sec.9 CPC and have been exclusively consecrated in the hierarchy of authorities specified under the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the 1994 Act in particular Sec.233 posits the clear legislative inference that the jurisdiction that the civil court otherwise had under the provisions of Sec.9 CPC including for adjudication of election disputes of Gram Panchayat, has been excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts under the Code and consecrated to the Election Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act. There is thus under the provisions of the 1993 and 1994 Acts a Pro tanto exclusion of jurisdiction from the civil court or from any other court or tribunal of such jurisdiction, power and authority and in relation to such class of disputes as have been consecrated by the two legislations to the care of special tribunals constituted under the respective provisions. On application of the above principles, it needs to be concluded that the Election Tribunal constituted and empowered to adjudicate election disputes under the provisions of the 1994 Act has no manner of jurisdiction, power or authority to adjudicate upon a dispute as to the community status of a person to the extent that this aspect is dealt with under the provisions of the 1993 Act. The power to issue a community certificate, the power of investigation into such certification, the cancellation of such certificate or an appeal, review or revision against any certificate of a competent authority is entrusted to the specified authorities under the provisions of the 1993 Act. A fortiori the validity of an election to a local body or Gram Panchayat could not indirectly fall within the adjudicatory matrix of an authority under the provisions of the 1993 Act.” The above two judgments can, therefore, be taken as an authority for the proposition that so long as the community certificate issued by the competent authority under the Act continues to subsist, the Tribunals constituted under the Act cannot go beyond such certificate and determine the social status of the elected candidate on the basis of the material that may be produced before it by the parties. With regard to the judgment in Peedika Rajanna Dora (3 supra), on which, heavy reliance was placed by Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, the said case pertains to the election of a Member of the State Legislative Assembly, the validity of which, was challenged before this Court under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the 1951 Act’). This Court has framed issue No.3 as under: “Whether the Social Status of the first respondent can be decided in an Election Petition, when the matter is extensively covered by the provisions of the A.P. (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 and the procedure prescribed thereunder?” While answering the said issue, this Court rejected the contention advanced by the elected candidate that the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the 1951 Act cannot go behind the community certificate issued under the Act on the reasoning that the caste certificate issued under the provisions of the Act served a different purpose and that it could not stand in the way of election petition filed under the 1951 Act. In support of this finding, the learned Judge had relied on the judgment in Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju v. Nimmaka Jaya Raju and others[4] wherein the Supreme Court held that the certificate issued under the Act served a different purpose and could not stand in the way of an election petition filed under the 1951 Act. A similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and others[5], wherein their Lordships have drawn a distinction between the cases arising under the 1951 Act and the election disputes pertaining to municipal and other local authorities. It is instructive to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment hereunder: “…That apart, a reference to Section 3 of the Act would indicate that a certificate thereunder, insofar as it relates to elections, is confined in its validity to elections to local authorities and cooperative institutions. It does not embrace an election to the Legislative Assembly or to Parliament. Therefore, in any view of the matter, it cannot be said that the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under the Representation of People Act, 1951 in an election petition is precluded from going into the question of status of a candidate or proceeding to make an independent inquiry into that question in spite of the production of a certificate under the Act. At best, such a certificate could be used in evidence and its evidentiary value will have to be assessed in the light of other evidence let in, in an election petition.” On a careful analysis of the legal position emerging from the above-noted judgments, I am of the opinion that the Election Tribunal has committed a serious error in setting aside the election of the petitioner by embarking upon his social status traveling beyond the caste certificate held by the petitioner. So long as the caste certificate issued by the competent authority under the Act continues to subsist, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enquire into the social status of the person holding such certificate and come to the conclusion that he belongs to a different caste from one which he is certified to belong to. In view of the above finding on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it is not necessary for this Court to deal with the merits of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the social status of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Election Tribunal impugned in this writ petition is set aside and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order granted in W.P.M.P.No.20586 of 2010 stands vacated and W.P.M.P.No.20586 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 11.11.2010. VGB [1] 2003 (1) ALT 583 [2] 2003 (1) ALT 738 [3] 2006(4) ALD 574 [4] (2006) 1 SCC 212 [5] (2005) 2 SCC 244