ORDER Piyush Mathur, J. 1. The Municipal Election convened for Ward No. 16 of Municipal Council, Shivpuri was questioned by the Petitioners in an election petition, preferred in terms of Section 20 of M.P. Municipalities Act against Respondent Govind Singh, on the ground that he belongs to Rajput Caste and is not a member of Scheduled Tribe, for which Ward No. 16 was reserved, for the election of its representatives. The election petition was tried by I Vth Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Shivpuri in Election Petition No. 2/2005 and by judgment dated 4.8.2005 the election petition has been dismissed. 2. The election Petitioners who had themselves contested the election, held on date 20th December, 2004 has raised an objection before the Returning Officer, that Respondent No. 1 Govind Singh belong to General Category, being a member of Rajput Caste whereafter his candidature against the reserved constituency should not be permitted, but the Returning Officer while conducting some preliminary investigation, based upon the caste certificate, produced by Respondent No. 1, found him to be a member belonging to Schduled Tribe and permitted him to participate in the election process. Incidentally, Govind Singh was declared as returned candidate from Ward No. 16 and a certificate of election was issued in his favour whereafter an election petition was filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Section 20 of M.P. Municipalities Act before the District Judge, Shivpuri. 3. The Election Tribunal had permitted the election Petitioner and the returned candidate to lay oral and documentary evidence for substantiating their respective stand, pursuant to which election Petitioners have examined Makkhan and Raju Adivasi as PW1 and PW2 and an independent witness Laxman Rawat was examined as PW3. These witnesses have exhibited on record the Mark-sheet of Govind Singh issued by Higher Secondary School No. 2, Shivpuri and a copy of Khasra of an agricultural land situated at village Barodi Sadak, containing the name and description of family members of Respondent No. 1, to demonstrate that he belongs to Rajput Caste. 4. The returned candidate Govind Singh has examined himself as DW1 and has placed on record his caste certificate and the certificate of election to demonstrate that on the strength of the caste certificate issued by the competent authority, he had lawfully contested the election from Ward No. 16 of Municipal Council, Shivpuri as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. 5. 4. The returned candidate Govind Singh has examined himself as DW1 and has placed on record his caste certificate and the certificate of election to demonstrate that on the strength of the caste certificate issued by the competent authority, he had lawfully contested the election from Ward No. 16 of Municipal Council, Shivpuri as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. 5. The Election Tribunal while framing the issue regarding the status of Respondent No. 1 to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe and the fact of reservation of Ward No. 16 for Scheduled Tribe had focused its attention on the fact that election Petitioners could not produce satisfactory evidence and there exists no circumstance to disbelieve the caste certificate issued by the competent authority, in favour of the returned candidate and had reached a conclusion that as the relevant record of the school was not requisitioned from the school, therefore the Mark-sheet produced on behalf of the election petition could not be treated to be reliable and consequently the Election Tribunal had declared that Respondent No. 1 Govind Singh belongs to Scheduled Tribe and was eligible to contest election from Ward No. 16, which was reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe. 6. Shri D.D. Bansal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Returning Officer and the Election Tribunal have failed to examine that the caste certificate (Ex.D-1) issued by SDO (Revenue), Shivpuri has not disclosed the caste or the sub-caste in th first column, where the caste of a person is required to be disclosed but caste of Respondent Govind Singh was described as 'Saharia', in the last column of the certificate, which goes to show that without finding Govind Singh to be a member of Saharia Caste/Tribe, the caste certificate has been issued, by declaring him to be a member belonging to Schedule Tribe, which further shows that no inquiry was conducted at the time of issuance of caste certificate, otherwise the competent authority would have positively mentioned the caste in all columns. 7. 7. Shri Bansal further submits that the Election Tribunal has recorded a positive finding that Govind Singh belongs to Scheduled Tribe but there exists no satisfactory documentary or oral evidence on record to substantiate this finding, as the Election Tribunal has failed to conduct an independent inquiry for ascertaining the caste of Govind Singh and merely by lying upon the incomplete caste certificate (Ex.D-1) the trial Court has recorded a finding that Govind Singh is a member of Scheduled Tribe, which could not be treated to be an ad equate inquiry in the eyes of law, in as much as the Court below was discharging its function as an Election Tribunal and was not acting as a competent authority or an appellate authority for giving a positive finding about the social status of Respondent Govind Singh. 8. Shri Raj Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the Respondents submit that the Mark-sheet of Class I Xth (Ex.P-3) alleged to be of Govind Singh, contains material discrepancies not only in the name of the student but also in relation to the name and description of his father. He submits that the Mark-sheet of Class I Xth has been issued by the school as duplicate Mark-sheet where the name of student has been described as Hargovind s/o Lohare Singh Rajput whereas the name of Respondent is Govind Singh and word 'Rajput' has been added subsequently as an overwriting or postscript. He submits that Govind Singh had never studied in this school at Shivpuri, therfore, the Mark-sheet does not belong to him and as such it cannot be used for denying the correctness of his caste certificate. 9. Shri Shrivastava further submits that the caste certificate of Govind Singh has been issued by a competent authority after holding due inquiry and since the election Petitioner has failed to question its legality by instituting independent proceedings before the competent forum, the caste certificate would not loose its efficacy and would not debar Respondent from using the caste certificate to demonstrate his social status. He further submits that the election Petitioner could have called the competent authority as a witness for ascertaining the correctness or the genuineness of the caste certificate, but the election Petitioner has failed to perform its primary duty of proving or not proving a fact. 10. He further submits that the election Petitioner could have called the competent authority as a witness for ascertaining the correctness or the genuineness of the caste certificate, but the election Petitioner has failed to perform its primary duty of proving or not proving a fact. 10. I have heard Shri D.D. Bansal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Shri Raj Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused th record of the case. 11. The record of the Election Tribunal contains a Mark-sheet of Class I Xth issued in the name of Hargovind s/o Lohare Singh where his caste has been described as 'Rajput' and there exists a Khasra Entry of Survey No. 28/2 situated at Badodi Sadak village where the name of Respondent Govind Singh, his mother Jasoda Bai and his brother Vijay Singh find mentioned, wherein their caste has been described as 'Thakur'. These documents have been produced in evidence by the election Petitioner to demonstrate that Govind Singh is the son of Lohare Singh and Jasoda Bai and they belong to Rajput caste. It would be interesting to note that when Govind Singh was cross-examined and a suggestion was given to him that the name of his father was Lohare Singh then he explained that his father's name was Bhav Singh and mother's name is Jasoda Bai but since his father had expired during his childhood, he is not aware of the fact that his father was also known as Lohare Singh. It is further suprising that Govind Singh has completely denied, in his cross-examination, that Vijay Singh happens to be his brother and Chameli Bai, Janki Bai, Geeta Bai and Shanti Bai are his sisters. He admits only one description of the name of her mother Jasoda Bai which corresponds with the description contained in the Revenue Records (Khasra Panch Sala), although the Mark-sheet (Ex.P-3) creates sufficient suspicion about the correctness of the parentage of Respondent Govind Singh. 12. He admits only one description of the name of her mother Jasoda Bai which corresponds with the description contained in the Revenue Records (Khasra Panch Sala), although the Mark-sheet (Ex.P-3) creates sufficient suspicion about the correctness of the parentage of Respondent Govind Singh. 12. A careful scrutiny of the record of trial Court reveals that the affidavit filed as Examination-in-Chief by Respondent Govind Singh, in terms of Order 18 Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure contains his father's name as Bhav Singh alias Lohare and similarly the notices issued by the Court to him also contain the description about the father's name to be Lohare Singh and above all when the Vakalatnama was filed on his behalf, he described his name as Govind Singh s/o Bhav Singh alias Lohare Singh, but it is only at the time of examination and cross-examination of Govind Singh that he refused to admit that his father's name was Lohare Singh. This minor description might be irrelevant to certain extent in normal circumstances but it occupy importance in a matter where a litigant conveniently admit certain facts and deny another set of facts, with a view to somehow exhibit his caste certificate to be genuine, by completely conflicting the surrounding circumstances with his own parentage. 13. While dealing with an election dispute the Supreme Court has examined an interesting issue about the exclusive knowledge of a litigant, who deliberately remain silent and expect his opponent to discharge his burden of proving these facts, wherein the Court observe in a case reported as (2003) 8 SCC 673 , Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, that the question as to whether the burden to prove a particular matter is on the Plaintiff or the Defendant would depend upon the nature of the dispute and when a fact is within the special knowledge of a particular litigant, then the burden to prove the same would be on him, in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, when the fact of the parentage of Respondent Govind Singh was in the exclusive knowledge of Respondent Govind Singh, then it could be conveniently believed that the burden would shift upon him to prove that his father was not known as Lohare Singh, however a perusal of his own affidavit reveal that his father Bhav Singh was also known as Lohare Singh and to this extent his testimony becomes unbelievable and untrustworthy. 14. The mark-sheet of the school definitely contains the name of the student as Hargovind Singh s/o Lohare Singh Rajput and the prima facie perusal reveals that the word 'Rajput' has been written in different ink but the combination of the name of son and father as Govind s/o Lohare Singh becomes prominent for ascertaining the correctness of the name and parentage of the student and when the parameters provided under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act are taken into consideration for ascertaining relevancy of entry in Public Record, it creates prima facie impression in the mind of the Court that a document maintained in the ordinary course of business by a public servant, in the discharge of his official duty, would be a relevant fact. The Supreme Court while examining relevancy of Public Record has observed in its judgment, reported as (2006) 5 SCC 584 , Ravindra Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P., that Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act requires as many as four conditions to be fulfilled before treating a document to be admissible firstly, it should be in the nature of the entry in any Public or Official Register, secondly, it must state a fact in issue or relevant fact, thirdly, entry must be made either by a Public Servant in the discharge of official duty or by any person in performance of the duty specially enjoined by the law of the Country and fourthly, all persons concerned indisputably must have an access thereto. The ratio of this judgment and the scheme of Section 35 makes the Public Record relevant upon passing the aforesaid test and since no inquiry was made by the Election Tribunal from this angle, it becomes difficult for this Court to ascertain as to whether the Mark-sheet (Ex.P-3) passes the test of relevancy, in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act or not. 15. 15. The Election Tribunal may be a civil Court for a variety of purposes but the fact remains that the Election Tribunal is a Forum, specially created by a special statute, for adjudicating an election dispute, where the Tribunal is enjoined with the duty to satisfy itself about the correctness of facts more so when an issue of genuineness or correctness of a caste certificate is required to be adjudicated upon by the Election Tribunal (which is normally a jurisdiction of the competent authority), therefore, the Election Tribunal is expected to perform its duties in a careful manner for satisfying itself about the correctness and genuineness of the caste certificate. One might leave the issue of calling the record of the school to the discretion of the litigating parties but the Election Tribunal would have been completely justified in summoning the record of the competent authority for ascertaining genuineness and correctness of the contents of the caste certificate either on its own or by directing the Petitioner or Respondent to summon the record of the competent authority, in view of framing of an issue by the Election Tribunal, to declare Govind Singh as a member of Scheduled Tribe. 16. It would not be out of place to mention that the constitutional mandate reflecting in the principle of reservation of constituencies is based upon the intention of the Parliament/Legislature to provide adequate representation to respective caste and tribe, for whose benefit the reservation is provided and when a person not belonging to the Caste/ Tribe illegally or independently obtains a false caste certificate and press it into service, it turns out to be a failure of reservation policy due to fraud played by that person, therefore, it becomes a pious duty of the Court to ascertain, by all means, the correctness and genuineness of a caste certificate, whenever such an issue is brought to the notice and adjudication of the Court. The Supreme Court has examined this aspect of the matter in its judgment, reported as (2006) 1 SCC 212 , Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju v. Nimmaka Jaya Raju and Ors., that the caste certificate issued under the regulation serves out a purpose and an inquiry about the correctness of its contents cannot be normally conducted in an election petition, but when the fact of very issuance of the caste certificate is placed under a cloud then the entire matter should be carefully examined. The Supreme Court observes that the purpose of reservation of constituencies is to provide representation to such Tribes and Castes which are required to be given special efforts for their upliftment and the person seeking election from such constituencies must be the true representative of those Castes/Tribes. In this background it becomes all the more necessary for the Election Tribunal to base its findings regarding a caste certificate by conducting a detailed inquiry, as due to declaration of the Respondent being a member of Scheduled Tribe in the election petition, he would always be treated to be a member belonging to Scheduled Tribe and if after conducting adequate inquiry it is found that the certificate was incorrectly issued or wrongly obtained, then it would be virtually granting a wrong declaration to a wrong person. The caution given by the Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment about such fraud acquires importance in the present matter when the Court observes in a case reported as (2005) 8 SCC 283 , Lillykutty v. Scrutiny Committee, SC and ST and Ors., that when a person who is not a member of SC/ST obtains a false certificate with a view to give undue advantage to which he or she was not otherwise entitled to, that would amount to commission of fraud and fraudulent acts are not required to be encouraged by the Courts, as the Constitution does not confer special benefits on those, who do not belong to the category of people, for whom these provisions are made. Therefore, this Court feels that the Election Tribunal was required to be more cautious while declaring Respondent No. 1 Govind Singh as a member belonging to Scheduled Tribe. 17. Therefore, this Court feels that the Election Tribunal was required to be more cautious while declaring Respondent No. 1 Govind Singh as a member belonging to Scheduled Tribe. 17. A serious argument was advanced during the course of the hearing of the matter that the correctness of the caste certificate could not be examined by Election Tribunal in election petition, but now with the development of law and its interpretation, a time has reached now, when it could be said that such as issue could not be treated to be a foreign issue to an election petition because a prominent illustration would show that initially when an issue of recounting of Ballot paper was treated to be so sacrosanct that the same was not permitted to be raised in an election petition, then while examining the legal position the Supreme Court had reversed its own judgment of Ram Rati v. Saroj Devi [1997 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 195 (SC)], while passing its judgment in a case reported as (2003) 1 SCC 108 , Sohan Lal v. Babu Gandhi and Ors., by holding that after the declaration of result the only remedy available to an aggrieved party is an election petition and the relief of recounting of votes would be one such ground which would be available in an election petition alone. The analogy of raising all questions in an election petition has recently been advanced in yet another judgment of Supreme Court where the issue of caste certificate was sought to be distinguished with the grounds available under the head of corrupt practices, when the Supreme Court in its judgment reported as (2004) 1 SCC 46, Ragu Mahesh alias Regu Maheswar Rao v. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev and Anr., has observd that an election Petitioner is entitled to bring any illegality attached with an election, because it essentially and basically puts a question mark on the purity of election, therefore, it cannot be said that scrutiny of a caste certificate would be beyond the scope of an election petition, as the same goes to the root of the very candidature of a candidate, who described himself to be belonging to a particular Caste/Tribe, for maintaining his candidature against that particular reserved category and constituency. Therefore, the Election Tribunal would be justified in examining the correctness and genuineness of the averments regarding caste of the candidate and to ascertain correctness of the certificate for reaching a conclusion about social status/caste of the returned candidate. 18. Therefore, the entire evidence brought on record by the litigating parties no where demonstrate that there was sufficient and satisfactory evidence existing in the record of the election petition, on the strength of which the Election Tribunal could have given a positive finding that Respondent Govind Singh was belonging to Scheduled Tribe, whereas sufficient material was existing to connect Respondent Govind Singh with 'Rajput' Caste. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Election Tribunal has materially erred in declaring Respondent Govind Singh to be a member of Scheduled Tribe, on the strength of existing insufficient oral and documentary evidence and this Court further feel that the issue about social status of Respondent Govind Singh deserves to be probed further by the Election Tribunal by permitting the litigating parties to adduce evidence by also summoning the records of the school and competent authority, who had issued the mark-sheet and caste certificate. Consequently this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal in Election Petition No. 2/2005 on date 4.8.2005 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Election Tribunal for holding a fresh trial, by allowing the litigating parties to lead their respective evidence, on the issues framed by the Election Tribunal. The Election Tribunal shall be free to pass its judgment, based upon existing evidence and the evidence hereinafter brought on record by the litigating parties. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. A copy of this order be sent to the concerning Court/Tribunal by the Registry of this Court, while transmitting the record back to the Election Tribunal immediately.