NARAYANSINGH SAMPATSINGH WEAKEY Vs. DINA VITHOBA NARNAVARE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of respondent No. 1 Dina Narnaware as a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Constituency No. 140 i.e. Armori Scheduled Tribes Legislative Assembly Constituency at the elections recently held in Feb. 1967. The petitioner as well as the second respondent Raja Fatelalshah were also candidates for this election along with respondent No. 1 Dina. In this constitutency a seat is reserved for a member of Scheduled Tribes only. The first respondent filed his nomination paper, of which Ex. 25 is a true copy. Among other statements made in this nomination paper, respondent No. 1 Dina gave a declaration as follows :

(2.) After the declaration of this result the petitioner Narayansingh Weakey has filed this election petition challenging that the election of the first respondent is void on the ground that the returned candidate was disqualified from contesting the election as he is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe as included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order for Gadchiroli tahsil. The petitioner avers that the certificate given by the Taluka Magistrate to the first respondent only shows that respondent No. 1 belonged to Mana caste and not Gond (Mana) caste. The petitioner also alleges that respondent No. 1 is a permanent member of a society constituted for educational welfare of Kshatriya Mana (Badwaik) caste, that this Kshatriya Mana (Badwaik) caste is a sub-caste of Marathas or Kunbis and that members of this caste have no relationship with Gonds. The petitioner alleges that respondent No. 1 has taken advantage of use of the common word "Mana" which appears in the description of "Gond (Mana)" as one of the Scheduled Tribes and his own Kshatriya (Mana) community to which he belonged, and the declaration made by him that he is "Gond (Mana)" is false. It is alleged that even though respondent No. 1 obtained a certificate from the Taluka Magistrate that he belonged to Mana caste, respondent No. 1 described himself as Gond (Mana) in the nomination paper though in fact he is Kshatriya (Mana) Badwaik by caste, and thus secured acceptance of his nomination papers. According to the petitioner under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, as amended from time to time and operative at the time of the last election, so far as Gadchiroli tahsil is concerned, a person belonging to Kshatriya (Mana) Badwaik caste has not been included as a Scheduled tribe and therefore the first respondent was not entitled to be a candidate for the seat reserved for a member of the Scheduled Tribe.

(3.) It may be mentioned that the petitioner in paragraph 18 has also alleged that the second respondent was not a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The second respondent claimed to be a Rajgond i.e. belonging to a sub-tribe of Gonds called Rajgonds. But the petitioner withdrew this allegation when he was examined on oath before me and has now accepted the position that respondent No. 2 was a member of the Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the tribe to which the respondent No. 2 belongs therefore is not in issue any longer. The petitioner has also claimed a declaration that he himself be declared to be elected on the footing that both respondents 1 and 2 who were the only contesting candidates at the last election were not members of the Scheduled Tribe. Inasmuch as the challenge to the capacity of respondent No. 2 to contest the seat reserved for a member of the Scheduled Tribe does not survive, the petitioner also does not want a declaration that he himself should be declared elected in case the election of the first respondent is declared void.