CHET RAM BHARTI Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of Quowarranto to be issued for declaring respondent No. 4 as a usurper of public office of Pradhan of village Jagatsukh, Tehsil Manali, Distt. Kullu, H.P.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that election for the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Jagatsukh were held in Dec., 2005. It was alleged by the petitioner this seat is reserved for the scheduled caste candidate. The petitioner alleged that he belongs to scheduled caste as per the certificate and contested the election along with respondent No. 4 for the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Jagatsukh. It was alleged that respondent No. 4 belongs to Nath community, but he showed himself as a scheduled caste candidate. The certificate produced by him does not show the caste to which he belongs, as in the certificate of the petitioner shown as Lohar caste, which belongs to scheduled caste. Respondent No. 3 declared respondent No. 4 elected as Pradhan of the Panchayat of Jagatsukh as belonging to scheduled caste.

(3.) It was further alleged by the petitioner that when the petitioner obtained revenue papers in regard to caste of respondent No. 4, he came to know that respondent No. 4 belongs to Nath community and he was not eligible to contest the election as a Reserve Category person. The seat of the Pradhan was reserved for the scheduled caste candidate. It was further alleged that the petitioner learnt through a Notification dated 11.7.2007 that the Nath community which was earlier in the General Category now it has been declared as belonging to ‘Other Backward Class’ (OBC) and it was not in the scheduled caste. The petitioner alleged that he applied for a copy of the family register and learnt that respondent No. 4 had got the certificate changed regarding his caste from Nath to Jogi by fabricating the revenue record in connivance with the then Patwari. The Pedigree Table shows respondent No. 4 as belonging to Nath caste and thus, the petitioner alleged that he could not file the petition within thirty days after the results were declared and now he submitted a complaint along with other villagers to respondent No. 4 that he has made a false declaration at the time of election and he does not belong to scheduled caste community, he was not eligible to be appointed as Pradhan. A preliminary inquiry was ordered to be conducted on 2.8.2007 and a report was submitted by the Additional District Magistrate, Kullu and on the basis of the said report, respondent No. 2 issued a letter to proceed further under Sec. 146(1) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice to respondent No. 4 regarding submission of a false certificate and as to why action should not be taken against him under Sec. 122 and 146 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It was also alleged that respondent No. 4 filed a civil writ petition on 28.2.2008, wherein a stay has been granted by this Court and respondent No. 2 withdrew the show cause notice illegally, which action of respondents No. 1 to 3 is wrong. It was alleged that withdrawal of the show cause notice was illegal and malafide and since the petitioner could not file any election petition after two years, therefore, he filed a complaint on which the proceedings were initiated as against respondent No. 4. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the withdrawal of the show cause notice be held to be illegal and it may be declared that respondent No. 4 was wrongly holding the post of Pradhan and fresh election may be ordered to be held by respondent No. 3.