Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAMARUZZAMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kamaruzzama v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 13327 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5250 (6 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13327 of 2006

Kamaruzzama Vs State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel. The petitioner was issued a caste certificate a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition.  

          In that caste certificate the petitioner was described as belonging to the caste known as "Sheikh" and the caste certificate further states that the persons belonging to "Sheikh" caste are backward caste in view of the Government Order dated 15.9.2001, enclosed as Annexure-7 to this writ petition.  The relevant entry in that Government Order is at serial no. 48.  In that entry there was a comma between "Sheikh" and "Sarwari (Pirai)".  The Government Order has been clarified by another Government Order dated 20.9.2003, enclosed as Annexure-8 to this writ petition, in which it has been mentioned that the comma has been wrongly typed and the caste which has been brought within the definition of backward castes is "Sheikh Sarwari (Pirai)".

            Upon a complaint made against the petitioner the caste certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 16.11.2005. Apparently the order has been passed without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

However, the petitioner has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction. For getting relief in this discretionary jurisdiction, the petitioner should have established that he belongs to a caste, which qualifies as backward caste under any relevant Government Order or Notification.

Because this has not been done therefore we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner for filing a supplementary affidavit. Without that we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.  The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the urgency the petitioner may be allowed to agitate the matter before the authority which has cancelled the certificate. He submitted that by the said cancellation order he apprehends that the cancellation may be taken as conclusive proof of the petitioner not belonging to backward caste in an election petition which is pending with regard to the election in which the petitioner has been elected to the office of Pradhan.

If a Backward Class or Scheduled Caste Certificate is issued and a candidate contests on such certificate against a reserved seat and is elected, such certificate cannot be conclusive proof in an election petition. It would always be open to the election petitioner to establish by leading evidence to that effect that the candidate who has been elected does not belong to the category regarding which caste certificate has been obtained by such candidate and therefore such candidate was not eligible to contest against reserved post.  On the same logic the cancellation of caste certificate also cannot be held to be conclusive proof by the Election Tribunal and the fact whether the returned candidate was or was not entitled to contest on reserved seat will have to be determined by deciding the question whether the candidate belongs to backward or reserved category caste or not on the basis of the evidence led in the election petition.  The caste certificate or cancellation of caste certificate will be at best for one of the pieces of evidence, which may be considered by the Election Tribunal.

In view of this situation, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to approach the canceling authority if there was lack of opportunity, we decline to interfere in this matter.  The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dated: 6.3.2006

RCT/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.