LEELAWATI Vs. KANHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two matters are interconnected, with the consent of parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(2.) THE facts are in the narrow compass. THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7476/2010 Smt. Leelawati was elected as a Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat Khirkhiri, which was called in question by one Shri Kanhaiyalal (respondent No.1 herein) by filing an election petition under section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter called as the 'Adhiniyam'). This petition is directed against the order passed on 6-12-2010 (Annexure P/1) by the Specified Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheopur, whereby the election of the petitioner was quashed and under rule 23(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1995') the post of Sarpanch is declared as vacant.

(3.) SHRI Sharma has raised three points, on the strength of which the impugned order is called in question. These are :- (i) The petitioner had produced a photocopy of caste certificate showing herself to be the Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidate in the election proceedings. In the event of any doubt about the caste status of the petitioner, it can be verified only by a State Level Caste Verification Committee constituted as per the judgment of Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others. By relying on paragraph 13 of the said judgment SHRI Sharma submits that Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the entitlement of the petitioner which was based on a caste certificate. (ii) By relying on Annexure P/3 dated 11-11-2005, the certificate issued by General Administration Department (GAD), it is submitted that as per this circular if a candidate has received any benefit on the basis of a ST certificate treating the said person as "Majhi", the said benefit be continued and even if any proceeding is continuing to withdraw the said benefit, the same be kept in abeyance. SHRI Sharma submits that on the strength of this circular, it was not open for the Specified Officer to proceed in the election petition to snatch the benefit of ST certificate enjoyed by the petitioner. (iii) The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the election petitioner Kanhaiyalal, during the proceedings of election petition, filed an application dated 26-9-2010, to withdraw the election petition. He submitted that the Specified Authority has committed an error in not permitting the election petitioner to withdraw the said petition.