- (1.) Invoking the jurisdiction purportedly in a public interest litigation, the petitioner seeks a mandamus to the Principal Secretary, Local Bodies and the Director of Local Bodies to take action against the seventh respondent who has been elected as the Chairperson of the Nagar Panchayat, Shankargarh, Allahabad. A writ petition1 was initially filed by an unsuccessful candidate for challenging the caste certificate granted to the successful candidate. By a judgment and order dated 21 January 2014, the petition was disposed of by directing the District Level Committee to decide an application within three months. Subsequently, another writ petition2 was filed for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto. Noticing the earlier order passed by the Division Bench on 21 January 2014, the Division Bench by a judgment and order dated 14 October 2014 disposed of the writ petition holding that in view of the bar contained in Article 243 ZG(b) of the Constitution, an election to a Municipality could only be called into question by means of an election petition. However, the District Level Committee was directed to dispose of the proceedings within three months. The order of the Division Bench dated 14 October 2014 reads as follows: "The fifth respondent has been elected as Chairperson of the Nagar Panchayat Shankargarh, Allahabad, which was reserved for the Backward Classes. From the record it appears that an unsuccessful candidate had sought to challenge the caste certificate which was granted to the fifth respondent and had moved a writ petition before this Court, being Writ-C No. 3411 of 2014 (Smt. Ranjana Singh v. State of U.P. and others). By a judgment and order dated 21 January 2014 the writ petition was disposed of by directing the District Level Committee to decide upon the application within a period of three months. From the record it is not clear as to whether the District Level Committee has decided upon the validity of the caste certificate. In these proceedings, the petitioners have sought a writ of quo warranto as against the fifth respondent. We find merit in the contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent that in view of the bar contained under Article 243 ZG(b) of the Constitution, an election to a Municipality can be called in question only by means of an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. The writ of quo warranto cannot be a substitute for a substantive election petition challenging the validity of the election. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the earlier direction, which was issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 21 January 2014 in Writ-C No. 3411 of 2014, must be duly observed by the District Level Committee. Hence, we direct that unless an order has been passed by the District Level Committee, the Committee shall duly comply with the direction issued by the Division Bench. We fix an outer limit of three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order for a final decision on the validity of the caste certificate. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
(2.) Subsequently, the District Level Committee took a decision on 13 January 2015 to the effect that since the caste certificate had been issued by the District authorities at Kanpur, no inquiry could be conducted at Allahabad and the certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Kanpur need not be interfered with. Another writ petition3 was again filed which was dismissed as withdrawn on 1 April 2015 after the matter was argued at some length, as observed by the Division Bench. Liberty was granted to avail such remedy as was available under the law. The petitioner filed another writ petition4 for a direction to the Backward Classes Commission to examine the caste certificate of the seventh respondent. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 22 September 2015 observing that the proper remedy was to file an election petition. The dismissal of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner on 22 September 2015 has not been disclosed. However, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the prayer in the earlier writ petition was of a different nature and hence it was not necessary to disclose the writ petition.
(3.) As the facts which have been narrated above would indicate the successive writ petitions have been filed before this Court seeking a relief broadly of a similar nature. Since the basic grievance relates to the election of the seventh respondent as Chairperson and there was a dispute in regard to the caste certificate issued to the seventh respondent, both in the order dated 14 October 2014 in Writ-C No. 54033 of 2014 and in the order dated 22 September 2014 in Writ-C No. 54428 of 2015, the Division Benches observed that the remedy of an aggrieved party would be to file an election petition. The order dated 22 September 2015 was in fact in regard to the writ petition which was filed by the petitioner himself which has not been disclosed though the petitioner has disclosed the other order which was passed in writ petitions instituted by Gopal Das Gupta (to which the petitioner was a party being the second petitioner). He has not disclosed the order which has been passed in Writ-C No. 54428 of 2015.;