AF^ ?^\ \^.. % HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR WRST PETSTSOM N0.1612 of 2005 Petltioner RajKumari, aged about 31 years, W/o Adwei Minj, D/o Sahbai Lohar, By Caste Agharia (Lohra), Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kenwra, R/'o village Kenwra, P.S. & Tahsii Pratappur, Distrsct Sarguja (C.G.) Respondent Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Coilector, Sarguja (C.G.) Sub-Divisionai Officer (R) Pratappur, Sarguja (C.G.) Retuming Officer Through Tahsildar Pratappur, Sarguja (C.G.) Maiti Devi Vv7o Chandi Prasad By Caste Gond, R/b Viilage Kenwra (Parvatipur), P.S. & Tahsii Pratappur, Sarguja (C.G.) VVRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 228^227 OF THE CONSTSTUTION OF INDSA SingSe Sench :- 'Hon'bis Shri Justice Satlsh K. Agnihotrl Present:- Shri D.N. Prajapii, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. Q_R_D_ER (Passed on thss 29th day of June,2007) 1. By this petitjon, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 11.4.2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Pratappur, District Surguja, whereby the eiectson of the petltloner on the post of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kenwra, Tahsil Pratappur, Dlstrict Surguja was set aside and the respondent No. 5 was deciared as eiected Sarpanch, unopposed. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutsheli, are that the post of the Sarpanch jn Viilage Panchayat, Kenwra is rsserved for Scheduled Tribes candldate (hereinafter referred to as "ST"). The petitioner, on the 2 basis of his caste certificate produced by the State of Bihar and such being a member of ST communjty, filed nomination and despite the objection ralsed by the respondent No. 5, was ailowed to contestthe election and was deciared as elected. 3. A cornpJaint was filed to the Collector-cum-DIstrict Election Officer, Pratappur. On the basis of the said complaint, the matter v/as referred to the respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisionai Offlcer (R). Pratappur for adjudlcation of the dispute asto whether the petitioner Is a member of ST community or not. The respondent No. 3, relying on the basis ot' the report submitted by the Tahsiidar and after having heard all the parties, held that the petitioner belongs to 'Lohara' communlty, which may be notified as ST in the State of Bihar, but it is not notified as ST community in the State of Chhhattisgarh. Thus, acceptance of nomination by the Returning Ofticer was bad and accordlngiy the eiection was set aside and the next candldate i.e. respondent No. 5 was deciared as elected. 4. Being aggrieved, the petltioner has fiied this petition on the ground that the dispute with regard to the caste of the petltioner cannot be decided either by the Sub-Divisionai Officer or by any other Revenue authority. 5. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner reiies on a judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patii and another vs. Addi. Commissioner, Tribai Developnient and others1 and in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Ravi Prakash Babuiaising Parmar & Anr.2. 6. Having heard learned counsei appearing for the parties, perusing the records and documents appended thereto, it is evldent that the Revenue authorities have decided the caste of the petltioner wlthout refemng the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 1: 3 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Ravi Prakash BabuSaising Parmar & Anr. (supra) observed as under:- "12. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judiciai body. It has been set up for a specific purpose. It serves a social and constitutionai purposes. it is constituted to prevent fraud on Constitutjon. it may not be bound by the provislons of Indian Evidence Act, but it would not be correct for the superior courts to issue directions as to how it shouid appreclate evidence. Evidence to be adduced in a matter before a quasi-judiciat body cannot be restricted to admission of documentary evidence oniy. it may of necesslty have to take oral evidence. 13. Moreover the nature of evidence to be adduced wouid vary from case to case. The rights of a party to adduce evidence cannot be curtaiied. it is one thing to say how a quasi-judicial body shouJd appreciate evidence adduced before it in Jaw but jt is another thing to say that it must not alJow adduction of orai evidence at aii." The Supreme Court has clearly heid that the dispute with regard to the caste of a person can be decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee alone. The Supreme Court has further given the procedure asto how the Caste Scrutiny Committee shouid decide the dispute. in view of weil settied principle of law, the Sub- Divisionai Officer (R), Pratappur has exceeded his jurisdlction in deciaring the fact that the petltloner was not a Scheduied Tribe. tn view of the foregoing, the Impugned order dated 11.4.2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent tMo. 3/Sub-Dsvisionai Officer (R), Pratappur Js set aside. The matter is remitted backto the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Pratappur for decidsng the matter afresh after decision on the caste of the petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Sub-Divisionai Officer (R), Pratappur, is accordingiy dlrected to refer the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for their decislon in accordance with law iaid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kuniars Madhuri Patii and another (supra) and in the case of State of Maharashsra & Ors. vs. Ravi Prakash Babulaisjng Parmar & Anr. (supra). S. In view of the tact that the election has taken place on 23.1.2004 and this was set aside on 11.4.2005, whereby the respondent No. 5 has been declared as eiected Sarpanch, unopposed, it is expected that the Caste Scrutiny Commjttee shaii decide the dispute as eariy as possible, preferabiy, within a period of three months. The petitioner, sn view of the dlspute raised about his case. is not entitied to assume the office of the Sarpanch and the post of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Kenwra may be kept as vacant. Appropriate steps be taken under the provisions of section 38 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 to fiii up the post as an interim arrangement. 10. The writ petltion is accorcSingly allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Ofricer (R), Pratappur for fresh adjudication in the light ofthe above-stated directjon. There shall be no order as to costs. — B/- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1. (1994)63cc241 2. 2006 AIR SQA/ 6093