ORDER Sujoy Paul, J. 1. Since these two matters are interconnected, with the consent of parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. 2. The facts are in the narrow compass. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7476/2010 Smt. Leelawati was elected as a Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat Khirkhiri, which was called in question by one Shri Kanhaiyalal (respondent No.1 herein) by filing an election petition under section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter called as the 'Adhiniyam'). This petition is directed against the order passed on 6-12-2010 (Annexure P/1) by the Specified Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheopur, whereby the election of the petitioner was quashed and under rule 23(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1995') the post of Sarpanch is declared as vacant. 3. After the order dated 6-12-2010 (Annexure P/1), as a stop-gap arrangement, one Smt. Santobai (petitioner in W.P. No. 2957/2011) was elected as officiating Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khirkhiri on 18-3-2011 through election process of Panchayat, as directed by respondent No. 2. A Writ Petition No. 2957/2011 is filed by Smt. Santobai, seeking direction for the petitioner Smt. Leelawati to handover the charge to Smt. Santo Bai. 4. I have heard Shri S. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Shri Sharma has raised three points, on the strength of which the impugned order is called in question. These are :-- (i) The petitioner had produced a photocopy of caste certificate showing herself to be the Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidate in the election proceedings. In the event of any doubt about the caste status of the petitioner, it can be verified only by a State Level Caste Verification Committee constituted as per the judgment of Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 , Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others. By relying on paragraph 13 of the said judgment Shri Sharma submits that Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the entitlement of the petitioner which was based on a caste certificate. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others. By relying on paragraph 13 of the said judgment Shri Sharma submits that Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the entitlement of the petitioner which was based on a caste certificate. (ii) By relying on Annexure P/3 dated 11-11-2005, the certificate issued by General Administration Department (GAD), it is submitted that as per this circular if a candidate has received any benefit on the basis of a ST certificate treating the said person as "Majhi", the said benefit be continued and even if any proceeding is continuing to withdraw the said benefit, the same be kept in abeyance. Shri Sharma submits that on the strength of this circular, it was not open for the Specified Officer to proceed in the election petition to snatch the benefit of ST certificate enjoyed by the petitioner. (iii) The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the election petitioner Kanhaiyalal, during the proceedings of election petition, filed an application dated 26-9-2010, to withdraw the election petition. He submitted that the Specified Authority has committed an error in not permitting the election petitioner to withdraw the said petition. 6. Per Contra, Shri Udit Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Shri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2957/2011, submitted that there is no merit in this petition. The petitioner fraudulently got herself elected in a post which was reserved for ST candidate whereas the petitioner is "Mallah" (Dheemer), which falls in Other Backward Class (OBC) in State of Madhya Pradesh. They further submitted that such a concealment of caste is very well within the ambit and scope of an enquiry under section 122 of the Adhiniyam. They relied on the judgment reported in 2005 (1) MPLJ 467 (DB), Roshanlal Maravi v. Shambhoo Singh and others. The relevant portion of para 7 of the judgment reads as under:-- 7. The question then is what would be the remedy if a person is elected by claiming to belong to a reserved category, either falsely or wrongly. The learned Single Judge has held that any irregularity in the caste certificate can give rise to an election petition raising a dispute regarding election under section 122 of the Act. The question then is what would be the remedy if a person is elected by claiming to belong to a reserved category, either falsely or wrongly. The learned Single Judge has held that any irregularity in the caste certificate can give rise to an election petition raising a dispute regarding election under section 122 of the Act. Claiming a caste falsely or producing a false certificate would also amount to concealing the disqualification for becoming an office bearer. ....Therefore, there can be no doubt that a case relating to false caste certificate or false caste claim with reference to a reserved seat would fall under section 36(2) and/or section 122 of the Act. Any act amounting to concealment of a disqualification, that is, a non-Scheduled Tribe person contesting for an election to a seat reserved for a Scheduled Tribe can be challenged either under section 122 or by an application under section 36(3) of the Act. 7. The next judgment on which reliance was placed is 2010 (3) MPLJ 417 , Ramcharan s/o Chhotelal Adivasi and another v. Govind Singh and others. The relevant portion reads as under :-- M. P. Municipalities Act (37 of 1961), section 20 -- Election Petition -Scrutiny of a caste certificate is not beyond the scope of Election Petition - Returned candidate claims to be belonging to a Caste/Tribe for maintaining candidature against that particular reserved category and constituency - Election tribunal would be justified in examining the correctness and genuineness of the averments regarding caste of the Returned Candidate. 8. On the strength of these judgments, it is submitted that the election of the petitioner was based on a fraud and thereby petitioner occupied the post which is reserved for a ST candidate. This is a fraud on the constitution. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. In the opinion of this Court, none of the points can be decided in favour of the petitioner for the reasons stated hereinunder. Point No. (i) 11. In Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) the certificate was admittedly issued by the Competent Authority. However, the said certificate was found to be fraudulently obtained by misrepresentation of the fact. Thus, factum of issuance of certificate by the competent authority was not disputed whereas in the present case the Specified Authority in its judgment has dealt with this issue in extenso. However, the said certificate was found to be fraudulently obtained by misrepresentation of the fact. Thus, factum of issuance of certificate by the competent authority was not disputed whereas in the present case the Specified Authority in its judgment has dealt with this issue in extenso. A microscopic reading of the order dated 6-12-2010 (Annexure P/1) would show that the Specified Authority enquired about the genuineness of the caste certificate (photocopy submitted by the petitioner). The caste certificate is allegedly issued in the year 1993-94 and its entry is mentioned in No. 908 of the concerned issuance register in the Office of Tahsildar, Sheopur. The Tahsildar Sheopur by communication dated 26-2-2010 gave information that in the year 1993-94 the caste certificate issuance register contains number from 1 to 210 and it did not reach to No.908, the number on which the petitioner's caste certificate (photocopy) is claimed to have been issued. The stand of petitioner Smt. Leelawati before the Specified Authority was that "Mallah-Dheemer" caste is recommended by the State Government for its inclusion in ST category. The Specified Authority gave a cogent reason that assuming it to be correct, as on date it is not included as ST category and any such notification which may be issued in future in the Gazette Notification will not have any retrospective effect. Accordingly, till such time "Mallah-Dheemer" is included as OBC category and not included in ST category, the benefit of ST category cannot be claimed by the petitioner. 12. The Specified Authority while marshalling the evidence has given following findings :- (a) The daughter-in-law of petitioner Smt. Meenabai in her affidavit showed her caste as "Mallah - OBC"; (b) The husband of Leelawati Shri Ramswaroop S/o Balkishan has land in village Khirkhiri, Tahsil Sheopur bearing Survey Nos. 12. The Specified Authority while marshalling the evidence has given following findings :- (a) The daughter-in-law of petitioner Smt. Meenabai in her affidavit showed her caste as "Mallah - OBC"; (b) The husband of Leelawati Shri Ramswaroop S/o Balkishan has land in village Khirkhiri, Tahsil Sheopur bearing Survey Nos. 79/2 min.8, 125, 126, 131, 132, 135, 115, 128, 129 Khata No.968 and 969 in his name in Government record (Khasra Panchshala), in which the caste of husband is mentioned as "Mallah "; (c) In the Job-card Register maintained in Gram Panchayat Khirkhiri the petitioner's husband Ramswaroop's caste is mentioned as "OBC"; (d) In BPL Survey Schedule 2003 also petitioner's husband caste is mentioned as "OBC"; (e) Leelawati's children were studying in Government Primary School Khirkhiri and certificates issued by Headmasters show their caste as "OBC"; (f) Panchayat Secretary certified the caste of Leelawati as "Mallah-Dheemer" - OBC; (g) Naib Tahsildar, Circle-1, Manpur Tahsil Sheopur issued caste certificate dated 17-8-2009 to the daughter-in- law of the petitioner (Smt. Meenabai) showing her to be "Dheemer-Mallah-OBC". Said Smt. Meenabai submitted her candidature for Anganwadi Worker and in that application showed herself as OBC. 13. Considering these ample material, the Specified Authority came to hold that the petitioner does not belong to ST category and in fact belongs to OBC category. There is no illegality in the aforesaid finding of the Specified Authority. It is crystal clear that the petitioner with an oblique motive to occupy a reserved category post of Sarpanch showed herself as ST category person on the basis of a photocopy without there being any material or valid certificate to enjoy the said benefit. 14. The Apex Court in (1997) 2 SCC 571 , S. Nagarajan v. District Collector, Salam and others held as under :-- The High Court under Article 226 is not a Court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Collector after detailed consideration of the evidence placed by the appellant concluded that the appellant was not a member of Scheduled Tribe (Kondareddi). His father, who had retired as Commissioner, had never claimed that status though in the ordinary course he would have claimed to be belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community to avail of the benefit of reservation available under State service. His father, who had retired as Commissioner, had never claimed that status though in the ordinary course he would have claimed to be belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community to avail of the benefit of reservation available under State service. The Single Judge was right in concluding that the appellant's father having been in government service would not have omitted to claim his status as belonging to Scheduled Tribe and had he really been a member of Scheduled Tribe community (Kondareddi). On the other hand, his father was a Reddy which is a forward caste and that therefore, the subsequent interpolation in the school records that he was Kondareddi was not genuine and an incorrect document was thus brought into existence to claim the status as Scheduled Tribe. It is obvious that the Constitution intended to give benefit of social and economic advancement and empowerment and social equality of status and dignity of person, by providing reservation in services of the State and in education by operation of Articles 15, 16 and 14 of the Constitution and that therefore, only the persons who are members of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes alone are entitled to that benefit. By interpolation of the documents, none can get a particular social status unless it is recognised as per the Presidential Notification/Order under Article 341 or 342, to avail of the benefit of reservation made in that behalf. The High Court was, therefore, correct in accepting the conclusion reached by the Collector that the appellant had not established his status as Scheduled Tribe. 15. In the peculiar facts of this case, the judgment of Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) has no application. The Apex Court in (2007) 10 SCC 590 , Geeta v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, after considering the Madhuri Patil's case in paragraphs 21 and 22 held as under :-- 21. Even in the midst of hearing of this appeal, we granted more time to the appellant, to produce any document, which will establish her tribe as Majhi", which is a Scheduled Tribe, prior to 3-11-1977, but she utterly failed. This would clearly show that the tribe certificate showing the appellant as Majhi tribe obtained on 29-8-1986 on the basis of tribe certificate of her father obtained on 3-11-1977 is without any documentary proof and is a manufactured document. 22. This would clearly show that the tribe certificate showing the appellant as Majhi tribe obtained on 29-8-1986 on the basis of tribe certificate of her father obtained on 3-11-1977 is without any documentary proof and is a manufactured document. 22. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development. In that case the Scheduled Tribe certificate was fraudulently obtained and admission was secured in medical college. The candidate completed her course of study and sought permission to appear only in the final examination. In the particular facts and circumstances of that case the Principal of the college was directed to allow her to appear in the examination as a special case without making it a precedent. Therefore, the decision in Madhuri was in particular facts and circumstances of that case. Secondly, here is the case where an undeserved candidate occupies the post of deserving candidate in the reserved quota meant for them. In such a situation, the deserving candidate is pushed out of the queue and the constitutional guarantee reserving the post for the deserving candidate is frustrated. This must be stopped with a strong hand. A bare perusal of these judgments shows that the judgment of Madhuri Patil's case has no application in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner is an undeserving candidate, occupied the post of a deserving candidate in reserved quota meant for ST candidate. This cannot be permitted and it is a fraud on the constitution. Even otherwise, factum of issuance of caste certificate by competent authority is not established by the petitioner. Original caste certificate was not produced by her during nomination before election Tribunal. In these circumstances, the judgment of Madhuri Patil's case (supra) has no application. 16. The Apex Court in (2008) 2 SCC 186 , Desh Raj v. Bodh Raj held as under:-- Thus, even if the entire oral evidence is excluded, the documentary evidence produced by the appellant clearly demonstrates that the respondent's father and his family members including the respondent had always held out to be and accepted as persons belonging to Tarkhan caste. It was only after 1990, that the respondent tried to show that he belonged to Lohar caste. Hence, the appellant clearly established his case. It was only after 1990, that the respondent tried to show that he belonged to Lohar caste. Hence, the appellant clearly established his case. Consequently, it is held that the respondent who did not belong to a Scheduled Caste, was not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly reserved for Scheduled Castes. The election of the respondent is declared to be void. (Paras 38, 37, 42 and 43). 17. In the light of aforesaid legal position, it is clear that the judgment of Madhuri Patil's case (supra) has no application in the peculiar facts of this case. This is settled in law that while interpreting a judgment Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Accordingly, blind reliance on a decision is never proper, as held in Union of India and another v. Major Bahadur Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 368 . Thus, the judgment in Madhuri Patil's case (supra) is not a binding precedent in the fact situation of the present case. 18. Accordingly, point No.(i) is decided against the petitioner. Point No. (ii) 19. The petitioner has placed heavy reliance on circular dated 11-11-2005. Para 3 of the very same circular shows the intention of the State that the circular issued for Majhi/ST category is required to be verified. The concerned Departments are directed to verify the genuineness of the said certificate and to verify whether the certificate holder really belongs to Majhi/ST community. Apart from this, this is only an executive instruction and cannot be enforced in the Court of law. 20. Apart from this, in the light of the aforesaid judgments of Supreme Court, no estoppel can be claimed by the petitioner. If the benefits are claimed or enjoyed without entitlement, the same can be enquired into at any point of time. More so, in an election petition it is well within the powers of the election Tribunal to decide the same. The judgments of this Court in cases of Roshanlal Maravi and Ramcharan (supra) clearly decide this issue that the Specified Authority can very well examine the entitlement of a candidate to contest the election of a reserved category post. 21. More so, in an election petition it is well within the powers of the election Tribunal to decide the same. The judgments of this Court in cases of Roshanlal Maravi and Ramcharan (supra) clearly decide this issue that the Specified Authority can very well examine the entitlement of a candidate to contest the election of a reserved category post. 21. Thus, point No.(ii) also deserves to be decided against the petitioner. Point No. (iii): 22. The Specified Officer has declined to entertain the application of the election petitioner to withdraw the election petition and held that it is based on collusion of the Returned Candidate with the election petitioner. The question is whether the Specified Authority was justified in rejecting the said application or not? 23. Rule 13 of the Rules of 1995 reads as under :-- 13. Withdrawal of election petition.-- (1) No election petition shall be withdrawn without the leave of the specified officer. (2) If there are more petitioners than one, no application to withdraw a petition shall be made except with the consent of all the petitioners. (3) When an application for withdrawal is made, a notice thereof fixing a date for the hearing of the application shall be given to all other parties to the petition. (4) No application for withdrawal shall be entertained after the evidence of the petitioner is over. (5) If the application is granted, the petitioner shall be ordered to pay the costs of the respondents thereto as incurred or such portion thereof as the specified officer may deem fit. 24. A bare perusal of Rule 13 shows that mere filing of an application for withdrawal of election petition will not automatically result into withdrawal of election petition. It can be withdrawn only with the leave of the specified officer. The million-dollar question is why such a provision is made by the Legislature. This is a matter of common knowledge that in elections lot of pressure, threatening, money and muscle power are employed and this sometimes results into filing of a withdrawal application in the election petition. Thus, a power is given to the specified officer to examine the genuineness of such a request and if the said authority comes to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, such a leave cannot be granted, it has a power to refuse the same. Thus, a power is given to the specified officer to examine the genuineness of such a request and if the said authority comes to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, such a leave cannot be granted, it has a power to refuse the same. It cannot be forgotten that this is a case where the allegations are very serious and fall within the ambit of "corrupt practice" under the Election Law. Thus, where such serious allegations are made, should the specified officer in a mechanical manner grant permission to withdraw the petition ? In the opinion of this Court, the said authority is under an obligation to decide the matter on merits and in the facts and circumstances of this case, he has not committed any error of law in rejecting the said application. 25. This Court in 1998 (2) MPLJ 309 , Meena Singh v. Prescribed Authority-cum-Collector, Sidhi, M.P. and others, held as under :-- 8. The present case would be governed by the rules known as "The Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991" and the relevant rule is Rule 13, which has been extracted above. This rule only places rider that the withdrawal can be done with the leave of the prescribed authority and nothing beyond it. 9. In the circumstances, the order of the election Tribunal, which is impugned in the petition, in relation to the withdrawal of the election petition, cannot be allowed to be sustained. In the present case the parties are so closely related and the withdrawal is in their domestic interest. Secondly, it was not a case involving any allegation of corrupt practice. It was only a case of recounting of ballot papers and in these circumstances there is nothing which may entitle refusal to withdraw the election petition. (Emphasis supplied) 26. The underlined portion clearly shows that this Court has taken into account the fact that in cases of "corrupt practice", the question of permission stands on a different footing. Hence, the specified authority has rightly rejected the said application of the election petitioner and rightly passed the order impugned herein. Apart from this, after marshalling the entire material, the said authority rightly came to hold that the election of the petitioner was void and rightly declared the seat as vacant. Hence, the specified authority has rightly rejected the said application of the election petitioner and rightly passed the order impugned herein. Apart from this, after marshalling the entire material, the said authority rightly came to hold that the election of the petitioner was void and rightly declared the seat as vacant. I do not find any infirmity, perversity, illegality or procedural impropriety in the order passed by the specified authority. 27. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 7476/2010, Smt. Leelawati v. Kanhaiyalal and others is bereft of merits and substance and is hereby dismissed. 28. The Apex Court in Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and another (2010) 8 SCC 1 , held that purpose of imposition of costs is intended to achieve the goal of acting as a deterrent to vexatious, frivolous and speculative litigations by the party. Thus the spectre of being made liable to pay actual costs should be such, as to make every litigant think twice before putting forth a vexatious, frivolous or speculative claim or defence. In the light of aforesaid, I deem it proper to impose a costs of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) on the petitioner. 29. So far Writ Petition No. 2957/2011, Smt. Santobai v. State of MP and others is concerned, no substantive right is created in favour of the petitioner therein. Since Writ Petition No. 7476/2010 is rejected, needless to mention that ad interim protection granted earlier is automatically vacated. There is no impediment for the State/Government to take steps for filling the post of Sarpanch in accordance with law. The Government is directed to take immediate steps to fill up the said post so that the regular Sarpanch takes charge and takes care of welfare activities running under the said Adhiniyam. So far Smt. Santobai is concerned, if she fulfils the requirement of the Adhiniyam and Rules made thereunder, till such time a regular selected Sarpanch is elected, she may be permitted to continue on officiating basis. This petition is also disposed of with the aforesaid direction.