- (1.) The petitioner is a resident of Bhatinda. Election to the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda was held on June 10, 1979 and 27 members were elected. No woman or Scheduled caste member was elected to the Committee. Consequently, the question of cooption of one Scheduled caste of Balmiki, Chuhra or Bhangi and two women arose under Sections 12-A and 12-B of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No. 2 called a meeting of the members of the Committee for administering oath of allegiance to them and co-option of members on July 16, 1979. After the oath of allegiance, two lady members were co-opted. Thereafter, the names for co-option of a Scheduled caste of Balmiki, Chuhra or Bhangi under Section 12-A of the Act were required to be proposed. The name of the petitioner was proposed by Mr. Bhagat Singh and seconded by Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma. It was found by respondent No. 2 that no certificate that he was belonging to the Scheduled caste of Balmiki had been filed by him and consequently, he rejected the proposal. He has come up in writ petition challenging the aforesaid order inter alia on the ground that he had filed the requisite certificate and, therefore, the proposal could not be rejected on that ground. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents.
(2.) The first question that arises for determination is as to whether the petitioner had filed the requisite certificate or not. It is not disputed that he was required to file a certificate under rule 5 of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 inter alia provides that after administering oath of allegiance the convener shall call upon the elected members to propose the names of the candidates for co-option under Section 12-A, in case no member belonging to the Scheduled caste of Balmiki, Chuhra or Bhangi had been elected. It further provides that such a proposal shall be accompanied by a certificate verified by any of the authorities referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 to the effect that the candidates whose names had been proposed belonged to the Scheduled caste of Balmiki, Chuhra or Bhangi. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 prescribes the authorities who can issue a certificate. These authorities are, a Magistrate, Sub Registrar of the registration department, Lambardar or a member of local authority.
(3.) The alleged certificate on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner is Annexure P.1 and is as follows :- "To The S.D.O. (C), Bhatinda. Sub : Issue of Scheduled Caste Certificate. Sir, With due respect it is submitted that I belong to Balmik Harijan which is a Scheduled caste declared by the Govt. That I am a bona fide resident of Harijan Colony near Balbhaman, Bhatinda of the Punjab State. So kindly issue me necessary Scheduled Caste Certificate and oblige. Yours faithfully, Sd/-. Thakar Dass s/o Sh. Ram Dayal, Harijan Colony, Bhatinda. Sd/- Babu Ram, M.C. 16/7/1979. I know Thakar Dass s/o Ram Dayal personally and he belongs to Balmik caste. Sd/- Diwan Chand, Ex-President M.C. Bhatinda." It was accompanied by an affidavit of the petitioner stating that he was a Balmik Harijan and resident of Dhebor Colony, Bhatinda. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Mr. Dewan Chand issued a certificate and he was entitled to do so as he had been elected as a member of the Municipal Committee and administered oath on the same date. He further submits that the application was also signed by another Municipal Commissioner namely Mr. Babu Ram, who was also administered the oath on the same date. According to him, Mr. Dewan Chand and Mr. Babu Ram signed the application after they had been administered oath. He further submits that there was no prescribed form of a certificate and, therefore, their attestation should be considered to be a proper certificate. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that if Annexure P.1 is read as a whole then the endorsement signed by Mr. Dewan Chand cannot be treated as a certificate. He further submits that Mr. Babu Ram did not make any endorsement on the application and, therefore, his signature cannot be considered to be a certificate. He also submits that the document is to be read as a whole and if it is done, then by no stretch of imagination the alleged certificate can be treated to be so.;