„•**•"' ^•^ws^^tf^^--- ^^s^sw-^\.^-k0y)""'" t IN THE HIGHC:OURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(C) N0. 25y1L^ /2QQ9 Smt. Shukwara Bai, Sl'ngfe Bench W/o- Shri Rathdas, Aged about 60 years, R/o- Village-Puraina, Tehsil - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh, Presently working as Sarpanch Gram Panchayat-Puraina, Tehsil - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, IS/tantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^" 2. Director, Panchayat, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1 3. Collector/Additional Collector, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ^ 4. Smt. Saraswati Bai, W/o- Khedulal Sidar, Aged about- Not known to the Petitioner, R/o- VilIage-Puraina, Tehsil-Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh, C.G. RESPQNDENTS ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA MIGHCOURTGtRGHMerTIS©ftRt-l:BlLASF>tJR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.25'72 OF 2009 PETITIONER Smt.Shukwaira Bai RESPONDENTS • Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others BliB F (Writ petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Vivek Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 30th day of June,2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legibility and validity of the order dated 12/05/2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in appeal no. 242/A- 89/08.09 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17/02/2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh, has been dismissed. 2. The indisputable facts, in short, for disposal of the case are that the post of Sarpanch of Gram ^Panchayat, Puraina is reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman) candidate. The petitioner, on the basis of a caste certificate filed nomination and was declared successful to the post of Sarpanch. Thereafter, one Sarswati Bai Sidar (Ex- Sarpanch) filed a complaint before the Tehsildar-Kharsiya, stating that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe category and she belongs to Other Backward Class. Copy of the complaint has not been supplied to the petitioner. The Tehsildar without having any jurisdiction entertained the complaint and registered the case \. \ against the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Collector. 3S£<^SsS!SsySSs3K';!''V ..-f'r^l '*. 9S 'v.lta^J During the course of enquiry, the Additional Collector issued show cause notice to the petitioner and asked the petitioner to remain present on 05/01/2009, as is evident from the letter dated 14/11/2008 (Annexure P/8). The petitioner submitted her response stating that she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category. The Additional Collector without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its letter and spirit passed the order against the petitioner and removed her from the post of Sarpanch. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director, Panchayat which was dismissed by order dated 12/05/2009 (Annexure P/1). Thus, this petition. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat-Puraina. Her election was never questioned by way of filing election petition. She belongs to ST category. The Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to disqualify the petitioner to be a Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. Even, the Additional Collector or any other revenue. authority has no jurisdiction to make an enquiry with respect to the caste of the petitioner. The Director, Panchayat has also not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case a<id without application of mind dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by a non speaking order. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed his reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in Kumari ft/ladhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others and State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & v ''"-. 1 (1994)63cc21 ''^^^'•^. 'wss 6. Anr. . He also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court rendered in Rajkumari v. State of C.G. & others Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the records and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the Revenue authorities have decided the caste of the petitioner without referring the matter to the Cast Scrutiny Committee. The Supreme Court in Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar (supra) observed as under: "12. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judicial body. It has been set up for a specific purpose. It sen/es a social and constitutional purpose. It is constituted to prevent fraud on Constitution. It may not be bound by the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, but it would not be correct for the superior courts to issue directions as to how it should appreciate evidence. Evidence to be adduced in a matter before a quasi-judicial body cannot be restricted to admission of documentary evidence only. It may of necessity have to take oral evidence. 13. Moreover the nature of evidence to be adduced would vary from case to case. The rights of a party to adduce evidence cannot be curtailed. It is one thing to say how a quasi-judicial body should appreciate evidence adduced before it in law but it is another thing to say that it must not allow adduction of oral evidence at all." 7. The Supreme Court has clearly held that the dispute with regard to the caste of a person can be deeided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee alone. The Supreme Court has further given the 'pirocedure asto how the Caste Scrutiny Cbmmittee should decide the dispute. 2 2006 AIR SCW 6093 3 2008 (2) CGLJ 45 tt- ^.. ':'^'' fS 8. ]n the matter of election, when there is a statutory provision to file election petition the revenue authorities cannot interfere with the election on the basis of a complaint and quash the election of a return candidate. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and applying the well settled principles of the law to the facts of the case on hand, the impugned order dated 12/05/2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by' the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that if the matter is referred to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law on its merit as early as possible preferably within a period of three months, as the petitioner being elected as Sarpanch has been removed on the basis of report submitted by the Additional Collector, Raigarh, that the petitioner does not belong to ST category without any authority of law.. 10. No order asto costs. §^/_ ~"—^ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge