Bombay High Court: In the present case, two election petitions were filed challenging the election of Respondent 1, Shivaji Bandappa Kalge, the returned candidate from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency, State of Maharashtra for the election held on 07-05-2024 on the ground of qualification or disqualification by contending that Respondent 1 did not belong to the ‘Mala Jangam’ Scheduled Caste category as declared by him in his nomination papers. A Single Judge Bench of Arun R. Pedneker, J., held that the election petitions were bereft of material particulars and mere usage of words like ‘fraudulent’ and ‘fake’ documents and production of some contra documents indicating that Respondent 1 did not belong to ‘Mala Jangam’ caste was not sufficient. Thus, the Court dismissed the election petitions.
Background
Petitioner sought declaration that on the date of election, Respondent 1 was not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat in the House of People from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste member or he was not having requisite qualification within the meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (‘the 1951 Act’), to be chosen to fill the seat in the House of People from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency. Petitioner also sought declaration that the election of Respondent 1 was materially affected by the acceptance of his nomination along with his caste certificate, validity certificate, affidavit, declaration and nomination by the returning officer and as such, be declared void. Thus, petitioner challenged Respondent 1’s election on the grounds mentioned in Section 100(1)(a), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) read with Section 4(a) of the 1951 Act.
It was submitted that Respondent 1 belonged to Hindu Jangam caste, which was recognised as Other Backward Class under the Maharashtra Government Resolution Nos. (1) 1096/PK-48/MVK-5 dated 03-06-1986, (2) CBC 1098/PK-185/OBC-5 dated 01-01-2001 and (3) CBC-14/2001/PK-232/MVK-5 dated 01-06-2004. Respondent 1 was an elector for 41 Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency in Maharashtra State and his name was entered for 238—Nilanga Assembly Constituency, comprised within 41 Latur Parliamentary Constituency in Maharashtra State. Petitioner stated that in General Register of Zilla Parishad, Primary School of village Ankulanga (Rani) at entry No. 324, Respondent 1’s caste was shown to be a Hindu (Jangam), and the word ‘Mala’ was subsequently added and there was also difference in the ink and handwriting.
Petitioners stated that Respondent 1 had obtained caste certificate of “Mala Jangam” on 13-03-2014 from Sub Divisional Officer, Nilanga and validity certificate on 22-02-1019 from District Caste Scrutiny Committee, by applying fraudulent ways and means and by suppression of reality and true facts. Petitioners submitted that notice should be issued to respondents, and it should be held that Respondent 1 was not qualified to contest the assembly election from the constituency reserved for scheduled caste category as he did not belong to the scheduled caste category as claimed by him in his declaration in the nomination form.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241 and Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326 (‘Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Case’) and opined that the Competent Authority and the Caste Scrutiny Committee had exclusive jurisdiction to grant caste certificate and grant validity to the caste certificate under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (‘the 2000 Act’).
The Court stated that the Caste Scrutiny Committee conducts exhaustive enquiry into the status of the individual and in the present election petitions, it was not mentioned whether all the documents which petitioners had relied upon were available before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Court opined that this was a serious lapse in pleading of material facts in the present election petitions.
The Court stated that the Supreme Court in Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Case (supra) had held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had power to decide the caste claim of a person, validating the caste certificate in exercise of its quasi-judicial function and granted declaration as to the status of the person whether he belonged to the particular caste or tribe and the said status could not be challenged in the Civil Court as it was the exclusive domain of the Scrutiny Committee to decide the status of the person holding the caste certificate.
The Court noted that the 1951 Act or the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 did not provide for production of caste certificate and the caste validity certificate along with the nomination form and Section 33(2) provided for declaration to be made by the candidate contesting any reserved seat, specifying the particular caste or tribe of which he was a member and the area in relation to which that caste or tribe was a scheduled caste or as the case might be, a Scheduled Tribe of the State.
The Court also noted that in the nomination filed by Respondent 1, it was mentioned that the returned candidate had not supplied caste certificate and that he had to furnish caste certificate at the commencement of the scrutiny. On 20-04-2024, the Returning Officer passed the order stating that “Nomination accepted. Objections rejected. Separate summary enquiry order is enclosed herewith”. The Court stated that in the present election petitions, summary enquiry order of the Returning Officer was not enclosed and all the documents which were available before the Scrutiny Committee while validating petitioner’s claim were not mentioned/produced.
The Court opined that grant of caste certificate was exclusive domain of the Caste Scrutiny Committee after the enactment of the 2000 Act and the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred. Since the Caste Scrutiny Committee had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the caste status of an individual as regards the caste or tribe claim, this Court in the election petition would not render alternate finding regarding the caste of Respondent 1 unless a case was made out that the judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, granting validity to the caste certificate of Respondent 1 was not issued by the competent authority or was vitiated by fraud.
The Court relied on Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 509 (‘Karim Uddin Case’), wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the law on the subject of rejection of election petition at the outset and held that the election petition could be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) if the material facts were not stated in the election petition. Material facts must be such facts as would afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition and would constitute a cause of action. Every fact which it would be necessary for petitioner to prove, if traversed to support his right to the judgment of court. Omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of plaint would become bad.
The Court opined that the election petition was a serious matter, and it could not be treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor was it given to a person who used it as a handle for vexatious purpose. An election petition could be summarily dismissed on the omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action, or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, in exercise of the powers under Rule 11(a) of Order VII of CPC read with the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the 1951 Act.
The Court noted that Respondent 1 had caste certificate and a caste validity certificate in his favour granted by the quasi-judicial authority i.e., by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the caste certificate and validity certificates were produced before the Returning Officer at the stage of scrutiny and the reasoned order of the Returning Officer rejecting the objections was not annexed with the petition.
The Court opined that petitioners produced incomplete documents which were before the Caste Scrutiny Committee based on which they sought declaration that Respondent 1 did not belong to Scheduled Caste Category as claimed by him as “Mala Jangam”. Thus, this Court held that in the absence of pleading of material facts as to how the judgment of the caste validity certificate was obtained by fraud, this Court could not entertain the present election petitions as the Caste Scrutiny Committee under the 2000 Act had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of caste certificate granted in Respondent 1’s favour.
The Court held that the election petitions were bereft of material particulars and mere usage of words like ‘fraudulent’ and ‘fake’ documents and production of some contra documents indicating that Respondent 1 did not belong to ‘Mala Jangam’ caste was not sufficient and the judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee granting declaration of caste status was a judgment in Rem. Thus, the Court in view of Karim Uddin Case (supra) were liable to be dismissed in terms of Order 7, Rule 11(a) of CPC as it did not disclose the cause of action.
[Narsingrao v. Shivaji, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2944, decided on 10-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Jayshree Patil, Uttam Laxmanrao Telgaonkar, Advocates
