Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 639 (PAT)

Bishweshwar Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar

2006-07-26

body2006
ORDER I.A. No. 2386 of 2006 has been filed by the intervenor, who claims to be a co-villager of the petitioner and also one of the candidates for the post of Mukhiya. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I.A. No. 2386 of 2006 is allowed. Let the intervenor Surendra Kumar Sail be added as respondent no. 5 in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the State Election Commission and learned counsel for the intervenor. 4. This writ petition is directed against order dated 1.6.2006 (Annexure-1), by which the Block Development Officer, Brahampur, Buxar, cancelled the caste certificate earlier granted by him on 4.3.2006 (Annexure 4) certifying that the petitioner belonged to Kanu Caste, which is an extremely Backward Caste. The other relief sought for by the petitioner is that the petitioner be allowed to contest the election for the post of Mukhiya of Mahuar Gram Panchayat within the district of Buxar, polling of which has not yet taken place. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional survey khatiyan of 1989 clearly shows that the petitioner belonged to Kanu caste. He further submits that on 30.1.2002, son of the petitioner was also granted a certificate by the authorities concerned showing him to be belonging to Kanu Caste. He further submits that the brother of the petitioner was also shown as Kanu in the revisional survey khatiyan of the village. Hence, he submits that there was no occasion for the Block Development Officer to pass impugned order and to cancel the earlier certificate granted to the petitioner by the same authority. He further states that although in the impugned order the learned Block Development Officer has stated that he had made a spot enquiry into the matter, but the said statement is absolutely false as neither any enquiry was held, nor was the petitioner or any member of his family called in the said enquiry, nor is even any memorandum of enquiry present. He also states that the said Block Development Officer is biased against the petitioner due to political considerations and hence the impugned order of the Block Development Officer is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and perverse. 6. He also states that the said Block Development Officer is biased against the petitioner due to political considerations and hence the impugned order of the Block Development Officer is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and perverse. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the cadastral survey khatiyan shows that the grandfather of the petitioner belonged to Kalwar Caste, which is a Backward Caste and furthermore geneological table certified by the Mukhiya also shows that he belonged to the said Caste, due to which a first information report has been lodged against the petitioner, which is pending and these facts have not been controverted by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the intervenor-respondent adopts the argument of the learned counsel for the State and further submits that the brother of the petitioner had acquired some land at Buxar and revisional survey khatiyan of Buxar clearly shows him to be belonging to the Kalwar community, which is a Backward Caste. Hence, he states that the authority concerned has rightly cancelled the earlier caste certificate granted to the petitioner as it was obtained by misrepresentation. 8. Learned counsel for the State Election Commission submits that the nominations are accepted on the basis of caste certificate issued by the Block Development Officer and for this the Block Development Officer has passed an order stating that the petitioner does not belong to Kanu caste, which is an extremely backward class and hence on the said consideration, nomination of the petitioner was not accepted for the post, which was reserved for extremely backward caste. 9. Considering the aforesaid arguments as well as the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent from the impugned order itself that neither any notice in advance was given to the petitioner, nor was he present when the alleged enquiry had taken place and hence the said impugned order (Annexure 1) is an ex-parte order and the petitioner had no opportunity to place all the aforesaid facts before the authority concerned, who decided the matter only on the statements of some other persons. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it will be proper in the end of justice to quash the impugned order of the Block Development Officer dated 1.6.2006 (Annexure 1) and to direct the matter to be considered by an appropriate authority. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it will be proper in the end of justice to quash the impugned order of the Block Development Officer dated 1.6.2006 (Annexure 1) and to direct the matter to be considered by an appropriate authority. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Block Development Officer dated 1.6.2006 (Annexure 1) is quashed and the petitioner is directed to file a petition stating the entire facts and circumstances raised before this Court within one week from today alongwith a copy of this order before the• Deputy Development Commissioner, Buxar. Respondents may also approach the said Deputy Development Commissioner with their respective claims without any delay. If any such petition is filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Development Commissioner, Buxar, within the said time, the said authority will decide the legality of the certificate granted by the Block Development Officer dated 4.3.2006 (Annexure 4) in accordance with law by a speaking order within fifteen days thereafter. 11. Since the election is already stayed by the District Magistrate, Buxar, it is expected that no step in that regard will be taken till the disposal of the said petition by the Deputy Development Commissioner. 12. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. 13. In the special circumstances of this case, let copies of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State Election Commission and learned counsel for the invervenor-respondent.