Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the communication dated 26.04.2018 as contained under Memo No.491 in terms of the recommendation for cancellation of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is under question in this writ petition.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the caste certificate has been issued by the competent authority certifying therein that he belongs to "Dusadh" caste. In pursuance to the aforesaid caste certificate, he has contested the election of "Mayor" in the year 2010 but no objection has been raised at that time regarding the aforesaid caste and again, in the year 2015 he has contested the election of "Member Panchayat Samiti" and then no objection has been raised, but in the year 2018 he has contested the election of "Mayor", the objection has been raised by the other contestants of the election regarding the social status of the petitioner. The concerned authority, without application of mind has cancelled the caste certificate and merely for formality the same has been sent before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for taking decision and as such the said recommendation cannot be said to be a recommendation rather it is pre-determined hence the same is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee since has been constituted by virtue of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. Vrs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors., 1994 6 SCC 241 wherein the factual aspect is quite different to that of the present case and hence the case of the petitioner is not fit to be considered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and on that account the decision of the authority is also not sustainable. His further submission is that since he is the successful candidate in the said election as such if caste certificate has properly been issued, the same is to be questioned by filing election petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the State-respondent has submitted that the contention as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the communication dated 26.04.2018 is a direction, is not correct in view of the contents stipulated therein to the effect that is a request to take such decision by conducting an enquiry in this regard, therefore, the same may not be said to be a direction rather when the enquiry has been requested to be conducted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner can put forth his case before the said Committee in order to take appropriate decision. His further submission is that the filing of the election petition is for the purpose when the question of election of the petitioner would be involved but herein the question of election of the petitioner is not the issue rather the caste certificate is an issue, therefore, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the election petition is the appropriate remedy, is not correct, in view of the factual aspect involved in this case.;