A.F.R. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR APPLICANT/: (Returned Candidate) Civil Revision No.48 of 2009 G. Rama Reddy S/o G.N. Rao, aged about 40 years, R/o Railway House N0.559/D, Charauda, BMY, Tahsil Patan, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) NON-APPLICANTS: 1. (Election Petitioner) 4. Versus District Returning Officer, through Collector, Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. Returning Officer, Local Returning Officer (Municipal Council, Bhilai, Charauda), District Office, Durg, Chhattisgarh. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, District Office, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Vinod Nath Jogi, S/o Shri B.N. Jogi, aged about 30 years, R/o Panchshil Nagar (East),Charauda, Tahsil Patan, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. {Civil revision under Section 26 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 read with Rule 19 (2) ofthe Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rutes, 1962} Present: Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.3. Mr. Ajay Thakre, counsel for respondent No.4. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL ORDER (23-6-2009) 1. The applicant has challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 5-3- 2009 passed by the District Judge, Durg in Election Petition No. 13/2006 filed under Section 20 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short'theAct, 1961'). 2. Orderjs challenged on the ground that the present applicant who has been declared elected under the provisions of the Act, 1961 has been illegally declared void by the Court below on the ground that the present ^s^'^^ /y^ \ l^gs^l V applicant is not the member of Other Backward Classes (OBC) within the State of Chhattisgarh and without examining the caste certificate from appropriate authority i.e. the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on admission, perused the order impugned and record of the Court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that without any report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee the finding of the Court below that the applicant is not the member of OBC within the State of Chhattisgarh is not sustainable and the Court has committed illegality by not exercising the jurisdiction vested on it. He further submits that the applicant has filed caste certificate Annexure A-4 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh in which Caste Reddy has been declared as OBC in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Prior to issuance of notification dated 26-12- 84 issued by the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh the present applicant is residing at Charauda, Distt. Durg, therefore, the present applicant is member of OBC in the State of Chhattisgarh. Learned counsel also submits that the non-applicants were required to show that result of election of returned candidate was materially affected by improper acceptance of nomination of that candidate. He placed reliance in the matter of Sau. Kusum v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (AIR 2009 SC 1081) in which the Apex Court has held that taking into consideration the disputed facts i.e. the applicant's caste is covered under OBC of Madhya Pradesh & Maharashtra, the report from Caste Scrutiny Committee is necessary. 5. Undisputed facts ofthe case, in short, are that the present applicant who is resident of Charauda has filed his nomination for election as Councillor from Ward No.23, Municipal Council, Bhilai, Charauda, Distt. Durg which was reserved for OBC and has finally been elected. Election petition was filed on behalf of non-applicant No.4 on the ground that ttie applicant is not a member of OBC within the State of Chhattisgarh and non-applicant No.4 is member of OBC within the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, by illegal acceptance of nomination, his election has been materially affected. 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned District Judge has allowed the election petition and declared the election of the applicant void. Caste of the present applicant is not mentioned in notification No.F.8-5-Twentyfive-4-84 dated 26-12-84 issued by the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh in compliance ofArticles 15 (4) & 16 (4) of the Constitution of India, but caste of the applicant i.e. Reddy has been declared by the State of Andhra Pradesh as Other Backward Classes for the State ofAndhra Pradesh. 7. It is not disputed that the applicant's caste has not been mentioned in the aforesaid notification which is applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh by which the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh has dedared the caste shown in the notification as OBC. The applicant has filed notification and contested election for the post of Councillor of MunicipalCouncil, Bhilai, Charauda from Ward No.23 which was reserved for OBC. For filing nomination and contesting election of Coundllor from Ward No.23 which was reserved for member of OBC it was necessary for the applicant to be a member of OBC in the State of Chhattisgarh. But the present applicant has not filed any document to show that he is a member of OBC declared by the notification issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, inter alia, he has filed caste certificate which shows that his caste i.e. Reddy has been declared by the State of Andhra Pradesh as OBC. In absence of proof belonging to member of OBC, the applicant was not -^; entitled to file nomination or to contest election from the reserved seat of OBC. 8. After appreciating the material available on record, learned District Judge has declared the election of the applicant as void. This is not the case where there is dispute about thecaste that whether the applicant is member of OBC or not and this is not the dispute of caste that whether the applicant belongs to OBC in the State of Chhattisgarh. The applicant has not filed any material or document to show that he is member of OBC within the State of Chhattisgarh, inter alia, the above notification shows that his caste has not been mentioned in the list declared by the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh as OBC. 9. In the case of Kusum (supra), the Apex Court after taking into consideration the disputed facts i.e. the basis of two caste certificates of different States held that report from the Caste Scrutiny Committee is necessary. In the present case, the State of Chhattisgarh has not issued any Caste Certificate to the applicant and the caste certificate issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh is not applicable to the State of Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the case of Kusum (supra) is distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. As has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of Santosh Yadav v. Narender Singh (AIR 2002 SC 241), admittedly election of the applicant is materially affected by improper acceptance of his nomination. The Court below has neither committed any illegality nor failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it. lO.Consequently, I do not find any substance in the revision, same is liable to be dismissed, and it is hereby dismissed, at the admission stage itself. No order-as to costs. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge