HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P.No.17853 of 2006 Date:21st December, 2006 Between :- M/s.Dr.Ambedkar Seva Samajam Ambedkar Bhavan, Akberpet, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by Its General Secretary Sri M.Jaya Rao And 9 others .. Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 8 others .. Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P.No.17853 of 2006 ORDER: 1. Episode in short: M/s.Dr.Ambedkar Seva Sangham, Ambedkar Bhavan, Akberpet, Bapatla, Guntur District, represented by its General Secretary M.Jaya Rao and certain others filed the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of a writ of quo warranto against the 9th respondent on the ground that the 9th respondent had usurped the office of the Chair-person of Bapatla Municipality and also the office of Municipal Councillor of 8th Ward of the said Municipality on the ground that the said 9th respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste though in fact he does not belong to Scheduled Caste at all, but belongs to B.C. ‘C’ (Mala) converted to Christianity. 2. Several factual details are narrated in the respective pleadings of the parties. This Court issued Notice Before Admission initially on 28-8-2006 and issued rule nisi on 7-9-2006. Inasmuch as the contesting respondents had put in their respective pleadings, the counter affidavits, the Writ Petition is being finally disposed of. 3. W.P.M.P.No.23998/2006: This application is filed by the writ petitioners praying this Court to receive a copy of the report of the Inspector of Police, CID, RCIU, Guntur dated 21-8-2006 and pass such other suitable orders. Certain factual details are narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the application in paras 2 to 5 and it is stated that the 1st petitioner-Association also had submitted a representation to the A.P. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission with respect to the fraud played by the 9th respondent and the said Commission forwarded the same to Inspector General of Police, Cell for Protection of civil rights and consequently an investigation was made through the Inspector of Police, CID, RCIU, Guntur and the said officer after investigation submitted report on 21-8-2006 to the Additional Director General of Police, CID, A.P., Hyderabad recommending for registering a case against the 9th respondent and it is further stated that the said report would establish the fact of playing fraud by the 9th respondent and hence the same may be relevant. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application to be ordered and accordingly the same is hereby ordered. However, the question how far the said report may be looked into would be discussed at the appropriate stage. Pleadings in brief: The pleadings of the parties in brief are as hereunder:- 5. The writ petitioners pleaded that the 1st petitioner-Association registered under the Societies Registration Act 1981 with Registration No.99/81 and the main objects of the said Society among others are to promote the welfare, provide for education, protect the rights, to work for the upliftment of the Scheduled Castes among other Castes in weaker sections of the Society. It is also averred that the other petitioners are the residents and voters of the said Bapatla Municipality hailing from various wards including Ward No.8. It is also further stated that the 1st respondent exercising powers under Section 23 of A.P. Municipalities Act r/w. Rules 3 and 12 of A.P. Municipalities (Reservation of Offices of Chairperson in Municipal Councils and Nagarpancayats) Rules 1995 issued notification thereby specifying the Municipalities and Nagarpanchayats reserved for the members belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Backward Castes and Women for election to the offices of Chairpersons of the said Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats vide G.O.Ms.No.759 dated 18-8-2005. By the said, notification among others, the Bapatla Municipal Council was reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. The said reservations were made pursuant to the Constitutional mandate provided under Article 243T of the Constitution of India. It is also further stated that exercising the powers under Article 243-K and 243-ZA of the Constitution of India, the 2nd respondent herein, the State Election Commission issued notification dated 29-8-2005 notifying the election to the Bapatla Municipal Council and published the programme for the said elections. The polling for election to the wards was fixed as 24-9-2005 and the election to the office of the Chairperson was fixed as 30-09-2005. The 9th respondent who belongs to the 8th Ward filed nomination for the election as a member of the Council claiming himself as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste by describing his caste as Mala which is one of the castes specified in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 issued under Article 341(1) of the Constitution of India. Three other candidates belonging to Schedule Caste also filed nomination for the said 8th Ward. The 9th respondent got elected as a Councillor in the said election held on 24-9- 2005. It is also stated that thereafter he obtained nomination from Indian National Congress as its party nominee for the office of the Chairperson of the Bapatla Municipal Council and also got elected as the Chairperson on 30-9-2005. Further a stand is taken that the 1st petitioner Association came to know that the 9th respondent belongs to B.C. ‘C’ category as he was Mala converted to Christianity and for past two generations his family was professing Christianity and on the said basis he obtained employment in the then A.P. State Electricity Board (presently Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.) and after obtaining several benefits for himself in and outside the service claiming to belong to Backward Class (Category-C) retired on 31st June 2003. It is also averred that the petitioners gathered the service particulars of the 9th respondent and documents, namely, (i) Xerox copy of service roll of the 9th respondent and (ii) Seniority list of Assistant Linemen of Tenali Division of the said Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. showing the name of the 9th respondent at Sl.No.9. These documents clearly disclose that the 9th respondent is a Mala converted to Christianity and that he belongs to Backward Class (Category-C) respectively and thus confirming that the 9th respondent belonged to Backward Class (C-Category). It is further stated that the petitioners made further enquiries and found that in August 2005 the 9th respondent obtained caste certificate from Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapatla, the 8th respondent, representing that he belongs to Mala which is a caste specified in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 issued under Clause 1 of Article 341 of the Constitution suppressing the above said factum that he belongs to Backward Class (Category-C). The 1st petitioner-Association submitted a representation dated 22- 3-2006 to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur narrating the said facts. On 14-4-2006 on the occasion of Dr.Ambedkar Jayanthi the 1st petitioner-Association also submitted representations to several authorities requesting them to initiate action against the 9th respondent and to uphold the Constitutional objects for which the office of local Self Governments are reserved for weaker sections. The said fact was widely reported in the local newspapers and all the local T.V. and cable channels. Further it is stated that another Association from Guntur, The Removal of State Communal Untouchability Struggle Association, registered under the Societies Registration Act, also had called for the removal of 9th respondent as he had usurped the said offices by playing fraud on 16-4-2006 and the said fact also was widely reported in the local newspapers. It is also further averred that on 27-4-2006 majority of the members of Bapatla Municipal Council had submitted written representation to the Commissioner, Bapatla Municipality, the 6th respondent herein, refusing to attend the meeting scheduled for that day on the ground that Municipal Council cannot function under the said 9th respondent as Chairperson as he had usurped the office by fraud and also requested to record the same in the minutes of the meeting and communicate the same to higher authorities for necessary action. Thereafter the 9th respondent had used the services of third party individuals with criminal background, who entered the meeting hall and abused orally and physically the said members who submitted the said representation. These incidents had been recorded and shown in the local Citi cable news cannel and the photographs had also been published in the local newspapers. It is further stated that requesting criminal action against the said incidents a representation dated 3-5- 2006 was submitted by the said members to the 6th respondent marking copies to the 3rd and 4th respondents and no action had been taken in this regard. In the circumstances the said members lodged a complaint with the local police and even on this there was no action. Further it is stated that the members belonging to the all the political parties also had organized rastha rook and the same also was widely reported. The 1st petitioner- Association had submitted a representation on 17-4-2006 to the A.P. State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with respect to the said action of the 9th respondent and the Commission in turn by its proceedings dated 19-4-2006 forwarded the same to the 4th respondent herein, the District Collector, for necessary action. Further, it is averred that on 18-4-2006 the 1st petitioner-Association also submitted a representation to the 4th respondent nomenclating the same as a complaint under Section 5 r/w. Section 12 of A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act (Act No.16 of 1993) with respect to the said Act of the 9th respondent, but it is reliably learnt that till date no action had been initiated by the 4th respondent either on the representation dated 18-4-2006 of the 1st petitioner nor on the proceedings of the said A.P. State Commission for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner-Association also submitted an application on 18-4-2006 under the Right to Information Act 2005 (Act No.22 of 2005) to the Mandal Revenue Officer, the 8th respondent herein seeking for copies of (i) Application made by the 9th respondent in the month of August 2005 for issuing a caste certificate describing as person belonging to Schedule Caste; (ii) Documents enclosed to the said application for substantiating his claim as Schedule Caste; (iii) Previous certificate if any issued to the 9th respondent and (iv) Caste certificate issued to the 9th respondent pursuant to the said application made in the month of August 2005. It is also further averred that upon receipt of the said application the 8th respondent knowing fully well from the local news papers and the electronic media that the said copies had been sought for a larger public interest and that the said larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought still taking shelter under Section 8(j) and 11(1) of the Act No.22 of 2005, refused to issue the said copies by proceedings dated 3-5- 2006. From a perusal of the said proceedings it is also evident that the 8th respondent issued a notice to the 9th respondent on the said application and received and considered his objections. Further it is averred that aggrieved by the said proceedings of the 8th respondent dated 3-5-2006 the 1st petitioner-Association filed an appeal under Section 19 of Act No.22 of 2005 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 7th respondent herein, on 10-5-2006. It is further stated that in the first week of May itself, the complaint dated 18-4-2006 lodged by the 1st petitioner with the 4th respondent under Act No.16 of 1993 has reached the 7th respondent and he is aware of the entire issue. In spite of the same, the 7th respondent in stead of calling for the entire file from the 8th respondent and issue the copies as applied for, issued proceedings dated 11-5-2006, signed after 16-5-2006, thereby directing the 1st petitioner to submit the copy of the proceedings of the 8th respondent dated 3-5- 2006 against which the Appeal had been filed. Though the 1st petitioner immediately submitted the said copy, till date no action had been taken by the 7th respondent. It is further averred that the 1st petitioner-Association also submitted another application dated 18-4-2006 under the Right to Information Act 2005 to the Public Information Officer-cum- Municipal Manager of Bapatla Municipality seeking for copies of (i) documents submitted by the 9th respondent at the time of the nomination in the month of September 2005 and (ii) Caste certificate filed by the 9th respondent at the time of filing of nomination. Further it is stated that the Public Information Officer-cum-Municipal Manager of Bapatla Municipality by proceedings dated 1-5-2006 informed the 1st petitioner-Association that on 18-4-2006 itself he had sought the permission of the Director of Municipal Administration, the 3rd respondent herein, for issuing the said copies and that he is awaiting the same for issuing the copies. Thereafter on verification by the 1st petitioner with the office of the 3rd respondent it came to be known that no such letter was addressed seeking the permission. Thereupon the 1st petitioner-Association brought to their notice about the letter dated 1-5-2006 of the Public Information Officer-cum- Municipal Manager of the Bapatla Municipality and consequently the office of the 3rd respondent called for the letter dated 18-4-2006 from the said Public Information Officer-cum-Municipal Manager of the Bapatla Municipality by which he had sought the permission to issue the copies applied for and in turn addressed letter to the 3rd respondent seeking its permission for issuing the said copies, but no action was taken in this regard till date. It is also further stated that the 1st petitioner also submitted an application o 19-4-2006 under the Right to Information Act 2005 (Act No.22 of 2005) to the Public Information Officer-cum-the Divisional Electrical Engineer Technical, APSPDCL, Guntur seeking among other details the service particulars of the 9th respondent with respect to (a) Educational qualifications as on the date of joining the service and (b) Caste and community marked in the service register. It is stated that consequent to the said application the Public Information Officer-cum-the Divisional Electrical Engineer Technical, APSPDCL, Guntur knowing fully well from the local news papers and the electronic media that the said copies had been sought for a larger public interest and that the said larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought and the issuing of the copies sought still taking shelter under Sections 8(j) and 11(1) of the Act No.22 of 2005 refused to issue the said copies by the proceedings dated 9-5-2006. From a perusal of the said proceedings it is evident that a notice was also issued to the 9th respondent on the said application and received his objections and considered the same. Aggrieved by the said proceedings of the Public Information Officer-cum-the Divisional Electrical Engineer Technical, APSPDCL, Guntur dated 9-5-2006 the 1st petitioner-Association filed an appeal under Section 19 of Act No.22 of 2005 to the Superintending Engineer of APSPDCL on 23-5-2006. The said Appeal was also disposed of by proceedings dated 16-6-2006 thereby refusing to issue the copies by upholding the reasons given by the original authority. From the above said facts it is evident that though all the officials are fully aware of the larger public interest involved in issuing the said copies under the said Act No.22 of 2005 still the original and the appellate authorities thereunder had been refusing to issue them taking shelter under Sections 8(j) and 11(1) though the very same provisions provide for issuing the said copies to justify the larger public interest and there can be no larger public interest than protecting the Constitution from fraud in question. In fact this conduct of all these authorities is legally mala fide action. Certain other factual details also had been narrated and the relief of quo warranto was prayed for inasmuch as it is stated that the 9th respondent had played fraud on the Constitution by occupying the respective offices the which he has no right to occupy at all. 6. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit wherein specific stand was taken in para-4 that two remedies are open to the petitioner. One remedy is to file an election petition within 15 days of the declaration of the result of the election before the Election Tribunal constituted under the A.P. Municipalities (Decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1967. The other remedy is to file a complaint before the District Collector under Section 5 of the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act 1993 for the cancellation of the Schedule Caste Certificate granted by the 8th respondent. Once the Certificate is cancelled the 9th respondent will automatically cease to hold the office under Section 16(1)(aa) of A.P. Municipalities Act 1965. Further it is averred in para-5 of the counter affidavit that under Section 343-ZA of the A.P. Municipalities Act no election held under the A.P. Municipalities Act shall be called in question except by way of an election petition presented in accordance with such rules as may be made for the purpose. Without availing this statutory remedy the petitioner has now filed a Writ Petition for a writ of quo warranto in which the subject matter of dispute to be settled before issuing the writ of quo warranto is the legality or otherwise of election of the 9th respondent. The remedy sought is therefore one which circumvents the law enacted in Section 343ZA of the aforesaid said Act and is therefore not available to the petitioner. It is further stated that in a plethora of decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly ruled that where a special forum is constituted for election disputes, only that forum has to be approached and therefore a writ of quo warranto does not lie. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent it is averred that the Government through G.O.Ms.No.759, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 18-8-2005 had issued notification duly notifying the election to Chairperson, Bapatla along with other Municipalities reserved for S.C. (General). Accordingly notification was given calling for election to 34 Ward Members of Bapatla Municipality in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Election Commission, Hyderabad and the election authority/Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The entire election process was done in accordance with the day wise programme fixed by the State Election Commission, Secunderabad. It is also further averred in para-4 that the District Collector and District Election Authority, Guntur has finalized reservation in various wards reserved for S.T., S.C. and B.C. duly following the guidelines issued by the State Election Commission, Secunderabad. The reservation of various Wards is as follows published through District Gazette No.LVII, dated 22-8-2005 of Guntur. General Women Total No. of Wards 6,15,16,17,23,24,30,31,33 & 34 18,19,20,25,26 & 28 11+6=17 SC General Women Total No.of Wards 8,10,12 1,32 5 S.T. General Women Total No.of Wards 22 - 1 B.C. General Women Total No.of Wards 4,3,13,14,11,29 & 5 9,27,2,7 11 Further it is stated that the polling date for Municipal Elections was fixed on 24-9-2005 and to the election of Chairperson was fixed on 30-9-2005 by the State Election Authority, Secunderabad. Further it is stated in para-6 of the counter affidavit that the 9th respondent in the Writ Petition had filed nomination to 8th Ward Member along with other candidates duly enclosing the required certificates as per norms and submitted nomination before the Assistant Election Officer appointed by the District Election authority through proceedings R.O.C.No.2595/2005/A3, dated 27-8- 2005 six candidates belonging to various political parties have filed nominations to the ward member election of 8th Ward which was reserved to S.C. General duly enclosing the required certificates to the nomination forms. Out of them four candidates contested in the election and two candidates had withdrawn their candidature. The poll was conducted on 24-9-2005 and counting of votes on 26-9- 2006 along with other 33 wards of Bapatla Municipality since 9th ward had been declared as unanimous on the day of scrutiny of nominations itself. Out of the contested candidates of Ward No.8 the 9th respondent namely Sri Kurapati Mariyadas of Indian Nation Congress had secured highest number of votes-564 out of polled votes-1024. Further it is pleaded that after completion of poll process a meeting was convened by the Special Officer on 30-9-2005 with the newly elected body representatives to elect Chairperson & Vice Chairperson and a majority of ward members had raised their hands in favour of Sri K.Mariyadas as Chairperson. Thereby the said individual had been elected and declared as Chairperson through indirect election and he is continuing as Chairperson, Bapatla Municipality with effect from 30-9-2005 till date. Further it is stated that on 18-4-2006 M.Jaya Rao, Joint Secretary of Dr.Ambedkar Seva Samajam, Bapatla requested the office to furnish the particulars/enclosures of nomination form filed by Sri K.Mariyadas, 8th Ward member at the time of nominations to the ward member election, such as caste certificate and declaration with regard to criminal cases involvement previously by the candidates by paying Rs.50/- through Ch.No.234 dated 19-4-2006 under Right to Information Act 2005. Further it is pleaded that an ordinary meeting was called for by the 9th respondent on 27- 4-2006. On the date of commencement of the meeting 19th ward members gave a request application to adjourn the meeting duly stating in writing that the Chairperson had misguided the office by submitting the false caste certificate and they are not willing to participate in the said meeting. Out of 19 members 10th ward member had also signed in the application without attending the said meeting. There are two co-opted members signatures in the application. Two other ward members though they had signed in the application but presented to the meeting. Attended ward members : 33 Co-option members : 3 Total attended : 36 Ward members signed in the application : 19 Balance ward members presented in the meeting : 17 Add two ward members signed in the application : 2 Add one co-option member : 1 Total : 20 The meeting was convened with a quorum of 20 members. Since the 1/3rd quorum is completed the meeting is scheduled and completed without ay obstacles as stated by the petitioner. Immediately after the closure of the meeting the matter was reported to the Regional Director-cum- Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration Department, Guntur and District Collector, Guntur. Specific stand is taken in para-10 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner-Association submitted an application on 18-4- 2006 under Right to Information Act 2005 to the Public Information Officer-cum-Municipal Manager of Bapatla Municipality requesting for issue of copies of documents submitted by 9th respondent at the time of nomination in the months of September 2005 including Caste certificate. It is further averred in para-11 that the P.I.O./Office Manager, Bapatla Municipality issued endorsement dated 1-5-2006 to the 1st petitioner duly informing that the plea of the petitioner is referred to the competent higher authorities for issuing necessary clarification through Lr.Roc.No.3652/2005/C1 dated 18-4-2006 since there is no provision to open the nomination and other election related papers kept under safe custody of sub-treasury officer, Bapatla under Rule 96(1)(B) unless there is an order of competent court to do so. The 1st petitioner also informed that the required information will be given to him as and when permission was received from higher authority. The 1st petitioner had not approached the officer by way of Appeal before the appellate authority in this regard. The request of the petitioner was referred to the State Election Commission, Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, A.P., Hyderabad seeking necessary permission. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration through the instructions R.O.C.No.7683/2006/Elec-2, dated 30-6-2006 had directed the Municipal Commissioner to give an endorsement to the General Secretary of Dr.Ambedkar Seva Samajam, Bapatly duly quoting the rule position. The State Election Commission, Secunderabad through Lr.No.310/SEC/F2/2006 dated 17-8-2006 had informed that “The information contained in the declaration was intended to the electors to judge antecedents, financial status and educational qualifications of candidates so that they may