Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1117 (PAT)

Lachho Devi v. State Of Bihar

2002-10-10

AFTAB ALAM

body2002
Judgment 1. The sole petitioner before this court was elected as Ward Councillor from Ward No. 3 of the Gaya Municipal Corporation in the recently held elections. The seat of Councillor from Ward No. 3 was reserved for a Scheduled Castes candidate and the petitioner contested the election as a member of the Scheduled Castes on the basis of a certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Town Gaya. Co-incidently the elected post of Mayor of Gaya Municipal Corporation is also reserved for a lady from the Scheduled Castes. The petitioner was an aspirant for the post and was intending to contest the election. Her only possible rival was Aasha Devi (later impleaded in this case as respondent no. 9) who was the only other lady Scheduled Caste Councilor in the Corporation. However, before the election of Mayor, a complaint was received that the petitioner did not belong to the Scheduled Castes and even the election of Ward Councillor was contested by her on the basis of a false certificate. The District Magistrate then made enquiry in Which it transpired that the father of the petitioner, Mahesh Ram was by caste Kahar which is not a Scheduled Castes but one of the most backward castes; that she was first married to a certain Birendra Prasad who too was by caste Kahar. Later on, she left him and married one Sukar Paswan who undoubtedly is a member of the Scheduled Castes. But by marrying Sukar Paswan the petitioner cannot acquire his caste. It was further found that there were two certificates declaring hears belonging to the Scheduled .Castes. One certificate under memo no. 783,9, dated 27.12.2001 was purported to have been issued by the Block Development Officer, Town, Gaya but on verification it came to light that it was a fake and it was not issued from the office of the Block Development Officer. In fact under memo no. 7839, dated 27.12.2001 a certificate was issued to one Arvind Kumar who was by caste Kahar. The other certificate which the petitioner had used for filing her nomination was issued under memo no. 844, dated 14.2.2002 and in view of the facts coming to light this certificate too was obviously false and steps were, therefore, taken for its cancellation. 2. 7839, dated 27.12.2001 a certificate was issued to one Arvind Kumar who was by caste Kahar. The other certificate which the petitioner had used for filing her nomination was issued under memo no. 844, dated 14.2.2002 and in view of the facts coming to light this certificate too was obviously false and steps were, therefore, taken for its cancellation. 2. The District Magistrate reported the matter to the Election Commission and on a consideration of the entire material facts and circumstances the Election Commission by letter no. 2530, dated 2.9.2002 (Annexure-5) advised and directed the District Magistrate to take steps not only for the cancellation of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner but for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the person(s) responsible for giving her the false certificate. It was further directed that as the petitioner did not belong to the scheduled castes she could not hold the office of Mayor reserved for lady from the scheduled castes and she could not be allowed to take part in the election of the Mayor. The Election Commission also advised the District Magistrate to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, for nullifying her election as Ward Councillor from Ward No. 3 of the Corporation. 3. This writ petition was filed challenging the instructions and directions contained in the letter of the Election Commission, dated 2.9.2002. But during the pendency of this writ petition the only other candidate Aasha Devi was elected unopposed as Mayor of the Corporation and then the petitioner filed an amendment petition for getting her impleaded as respondent no. 9 and challenging her election. 4. This matter was heard on more than one date with Mr. S.S. Asghar Hussain, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwary, JC to G.P. 9 representing the State; Mr. K.B. Nath appeared for the Commission and Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah for the intervenor respondent. 5. It is well settled that a person can belong to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe only by virtue of birth and not by means of conversion, marriage or adoption. Now, it is surprising to note that though the petitioner claims that Mahesh Ram only brought her up and he was not her biological father, at no stage in the enquiry, she gave the name of her biological father, In fact this aspect of the matter was taken note of by the Election Commission. Now, it is surprising to note that though the petitioner claims that Mahesh Ram only brought her up and he was not her biological father, at no stage in the enquiry, she gave the name of her biological father, In fact this aspect of the matter was taken note of by the Election Commission. In support of her claim to belong to the Scheduled Caste the petitioner produces some materials and documents such as the voters list and some papers from the life Insurance Corporation of India but she mainly relies upon her marriage with Sukar Paswan who admittedly belongs to the Scheduled Caste. As noted above, the enquiry by the respondent authorities has revealed that Mahesh Ram (whom the petitioner disowns as her natural father and about whom she says that he only brought her up) was a Kahar. Her first marriage took place with a person who was by caste Kahar. Later on, she left him to marry Sukar Paswan. In the enquiry and even before this court she appears to be taking shifting stands. In the last affidavit filed in this court she has reiterated her claim that she belongs to Dusadh caste and Mahesh Ram was her care taker only. In this affidavit she declares that her father was Meghu Paswan @ Charitar Paswan and her mother was Malotni Devi but this statement is made for the first time on October 1, 2002 after several months of the initiation of the proceeding. In this affidavit she also tries to disown the statements made in her show cause, dated 25.7.2002 stating that the contents of that show cause were wrongly ascribed to her. 6. To me it only appears that the petitioner has been shifting her stand from time to time in a desperate way. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, I find no infirmity in the directions issued by the Election Commission and in my considered view no relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. At this stage Mr. S.S. Asghar Hussain states that with regard to the alleged fake certificate issued in her favour a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner and any observation made in this order may not cause prejudice to the petitioner in her trial. 8. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. At this stage Mr. S.S. Asghar Hussain states that with regard to the alleged fake certificate issued in her favour a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner and any observation made in this order may not cause prejudice to the petitioner in her trial. 8. It is made clear that any observations or remarks made in this judgment are only for the purposes of this case and the observations made in this judgment may not be used or relied upon against the petitioner in the criminal trial on the charge of obtaining a false caste certificate and using a fake certificate for contesting election from a reserved seat. 9. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.