Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3061 (ALL)

Alimuddin v. State of U. P.

2014-09-29

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Shamim Uddin Khan, for the petitioner and Standing Counsel, for the respondents and Sri Sharad Pathak, appearing for Abrar Ahmad, respondent-5. By the orders dated 22.8.2014 and 27.8.2014, Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions in the matter. The Counsel for complainant-respondent-5 stated that necessary facts and materials were already on the record of two writ petitions and no Counter Affidavit is required. With the consent of the parties writ petitions are decided finally. Writ Petition No. 4964 (M/S) of 2014 has been filed against the order of Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 13.6.2014 cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner issued to him showing of caste of "Kuraishi" falling in the category of "Other Backward Classes" in U.P. Writ Petition No. 5858 (M/S) of 2014 has been filed against show cause notice issued by District Magistrate dated 26.7.2014 under section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and orders dated 26.7.2014, ceasing financial power of the petitioner on 6.9.2014, constituting three members committee for exercising financial and administrative powers of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sarai Bharat Rai, block Shivgarh, district Pratapgarh. 2. In the general election of Panchayats in Uttar Pradesh of the year 2010, seat of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sarai Bharat Rai, block Shivgarh, district Pratapgarh was reserved for "Other Backward Classes". The petitioner contested the election of Pradhan, claiming himself to belonged to "Kuraishi" caste falling in the list of "Other Backward Classes" in Uttar Pradesh attaching a Caste Certificate issued by Tahsildar. The petitioner was declared elected. 3. Abrar Ahmad (respondent-5) filed an application dated 30.11.2011, before Sub-Divisional Officer, for cancellation of the Caste Certificate of the petitioner, alleging therein that the petitioner belonged to "Pathan" and not "Kuraishi" caste. Sub-Divisional Officer called for a report from Tahsildar, who conducted an inquiry and submitted his report dated 6.6.2011, showing that the petitioner belonged to "Pathan" caste and not "Kuraishi" as such his Caste Certificate was liable to be cancelled. Sub-Divisional Officer referred the matter to District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pratapgarh, constituted under Government Order dated 28.2.2011. District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pratapgarh by order dated 31.7.2013 found that Tahsildar has not examined khatauni 1356 F and 1359 F as required under the Government Order. Sub-Divisional Officer referred the matter to District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pratapgarh, constituted under Government Order dated 28.2.2011. District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pratapgarh by order dated 31.7.2013 found that Tahsildar has not examined khatauni 1356 F and 1359 F as required under the Government Order. Tahsildar, in his report has submitted that the petitioner could not prove that he belonged to "Kuraishi" caste although burden was upon the complainant to prove it. Apart from the entries in the khatauni of third settlement, there was no evidence to prove that the petitioner belonged to "Pathan" caste. In different revenue record, different caste had been mentioned as such it cannot be said that the petitioner did not belong to "Kuraishi" caste. There is no justification to cancel the caste certificate of the petitioner. On these findings the complaint of Abrar Ahmad was rejected. 4. Abrar Ahmad filed an appeal before Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Allahabad (constituted under Government Order dated 27.1.2011) against the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Allahabad, who by order dated 13.6.2014 found that District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pratapgarh had not conducted proper inquiry in the matter. The defence taken by the petitioner that his ancestors were serving in Pathan Regiment of Indian Army as such in revenue records, 'Pathan' was noted against their names, is false as there was no Pathan Regiment in Indian Army as such Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner was baseless. On these findings the appeal was allowed and order of Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee was set aside. Hence Writ Petition 4964 (M/S) of 2014 has been filed. 5. The order of Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Allahabad was brought to the notice of District Magistrate Pratapgarh, who issued a show cause notice dated 26.7.2014 under section 95(1)(g)(3-a) of the Act, stating therein that the petitioner belonged to 'Pathan' caste but concealing the correct fact he had obtained Caste Certificate from Tahsildar, showing his caste as "Kuraishi" falling in the list of "Other Backward Classes" in Uttar Pradesh and contested the election of Pradhan, of the village, which was reserved for "Other Backward Classes" as such election was contested on fake certificate. The petitioner was given one week time for submitting his reply. District Magistrate simultaneously passed another order dated 26.7.2014, ceasing financial power of the petitioner. The petitioner was given one week time for submitting his reply. District Magistrate simultaneously passed another order dated 26.7.2014, ceasing financial power of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show case notice on 14.8.2014 (as show cause notice was served upon him on 8.8.2014). Thereafter, District Magistrate, by dated 6.9.2014, constituted three members committee for exercising financial and administrative powers of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sarai Bharat Rai, block Shivgarh, district Pratapgarh, finding that reply of the petitioner was not prima facie satisfactory. Hence Writ Petition No. 5858 (M/S) of 2014 has been filed. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parents of the petitioner have been professing themselves as "Kuraishi" from before the birth of the petitioner. In the school certificate, his caste was noted as "Kuraishi" at the time of his admission in the year 1964, although at that time, there was no reservation for "Kuraishi". The petitioner obtained Caste Certificate on the basis of School Leaving Certificate as well as his social status. The caste of "Kuraishi", is mentioned at Serial number 18 of Part-I of the List of "Other Backward Classes" as published in Government Order dated 5.11.1998. The petitioner has neither committed any fraud nor fabricated, any record. Tahsildar, in his report, although allegedly inspected the revenue records of the year 1330 F and 1347 F but has not inspected revenue record of the year 1356 F and 1359 F, which were required to be examined under the Government Order. Tahsildar falsely made remark that in School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner there was overwriting although there is no overwriting. In case, Tahsildar had any doubt in this respect, he should have examined the original record of the school. Report of Tahsildar was not admissible in evidence as he was not examined to prove it either before District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee or before Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee. Entries in the revenue records were not proved by examining any person, who is responsible to make entries. Both the committees concurrently found that proper inquiry was not been conducted. The petitioner examined several witnesses to prove his social status who had stated that the petitioner belonged to "Kuraishi" caste. The petitioner also filed affidavits of those villagers, whose forged affidavits were by the complainants. Thus the petitioner has discharged his initial burden to prove genuineness of Caste Certificate. The petitioner examined several witnesses to prove his social status who had stated that the petitioner belonged to "Kuraishi" caste. The petitioner also filed affidavits of those villagers, whose forged affidavits were by the complainants. Thus the petitioner has discharged his initial burden to prove genuineness of Caste Certificate. In such circumstances, District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee held that the complainant could not disprove genuineness of Caste Certificate. Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee, without considering entire facts of the case has illegally held that burden of prove has been wrongly shifted on the complainant. Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee itself found that proper inquiry was net conducted, it should have either itself conducted proper inquiry or remanded the case to District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee for conducting proper inquiry. Without conducting proper inquiry, Caste Certificate of the petitioner has been illegally cancelled. Subsequent orders passed by District Magistrate, ceasing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner is based upon the order of Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee. Election of the petitioner can be questioned only by way of election petition under section 12-C of the Act and not anywhere else as provided under Article 243-Oof the Constitution, which is complete safeguard as held by this Court in Dinesh Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. 2010 (81) ALR 356 , Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. (2011) 4 UPLBEC 3520 - 2011 (86) ALR 11 (Sum.), and Special Appeal No. 1201 of 2011 Jitendra Prasad Yadav @ Jitendra v. State of U.P., decided on 11.7.2011. Section 95(1)(g)(iii-a) of the Act has already been declared as ultra vires by this Court in Hotilal v. State of U.P. 2002 RD 451 , Due to contradictory judgment, this Court in Special Appeal No. 1270 of 2013 Satya Deo Shakya v. Ajay Kumar Gupta, by order dated 5.10.2013, referred the controversy to Full Bench, which is still pending. Caste Scrutiny Committees are constituted under direction of Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development AIR 1995 SC 94 , and subsequent judgments of this Court as well as Government Orders issued by State of U.P. dated 6.1.1996, 27.1.2011 and 28.2.2011. Caste Scrutiny Committee are bound to follow the procedure as provided by Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil's case (supra) as well as the Government Order dated 6.1.1996, which requires the inquiry to be conducted by Vigilance Officer. Caste Scrutiny Committee are bound to follow the procedure as provided by Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil's case (supra) as well as the Government Order dated 6.1.1996, which requires the inquiry to be conducted by Vigilance Officer. Inquiry has not been made according to the provisions as provided as such Caste Certificate of the petitioner could not be cancelled as held by this Court in Hizwana Banov. State of U.P. 2011 (85) ALR 288 (DB), Rajvir Singh Bath v. State of U.P. 2012 (30) LCD 1047 (DB), and Writ Petition No. 1261 (MB) of 2011 Kitabul Nisha v. State of U.P., decided on 21.11.2013. Impugned order are illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that so far as order of Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee is concerned, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of the appeal before State Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee and writ petition is liable to be dismissed as held by this Court in Writ-C No. 49950 of 2014 Abdul Khalik v. State of U.P., decided on 12.8.2014. Tahsildar in his report dated 6.6.2011, found that the ancestors of petitioner belonged to "Pathan" caste and not "Kuraishi" as mentioned in khatauni 1330 F and 1347 F, which are relevant records as held by this Court in Writ-C No. 49950 of 2014 Jawahar Lal v. State of U.P., decided on 4.9.2014. The petitioner was given notice by Sub-Divisional Officer but he deliberately did not appear before him and got his statement recorded nor filed any evidence to rebut the report of Tahsildar. Even in the writ petition, the petitioner could not give any explanation as to how his caste has been changed from "Pathan" to "Kuraishi". The petitioner is relying upon the order of District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee as such he cannot be permitted to argue that proper inquiry was not conducted or the inquiry is required to be conducted by Vigilance Officer. Doctrine of waiver will apply in the matter. District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee has illegally shifted burden of proof on the complainant as such its order was reversed by Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, has no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence on record and record a contrary finding. Doctrine of waiver will apply in the matter. District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee has illegally shifted burden of proof on the complainant as such its order was reversed by Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, has no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence on record and record a contrary finding. Findings of fact recorded by Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee is binding upon this Court as held by Supreme Court in Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. Thiru R. Jambidingam (1975) 3 SCC 254 , A.P. State Financial Corporation v. Vajra Chemicals (1997) 7 SCC 76 , H.P. Transport Corporation v. K.C. Rathi (2008) 11 SCC 502 , and Kedar Shashikant Deshpande v. Bhor Municipal Council 2011 (36) AIC 85 (SC) : (2011) 2 SCC 654 , and Lilykutty v. Scrutiny Committee (2005) SCC 283. The petitioner is claiming benefit of reservation for "Other Backward Classes" as such burden was upon him to prove that he belonged to "Other Backward Classes" as held by Supreme Court in Director of Tribal Welfare v. Laveti Giri (1995) 4 SCC 32 , and Punit Roy v. Dinesh Chaudhary (2003) 8 SCC 204 . The petitioner contested the election of Pradhan from a seat reserved for "Other Backward Classes" on the basis of forged caste certificate and thus committed fraud. Fraud vitiates all solemn action as held by Supreme Court S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath MR 1994 SC 853, K. Venkatchalam v. A Samickan (1994) 4 SCC 526. This Court in Bhikham Kharwar v. State of U.P. 2000 Raj Law Times 718, and Writ-C No. 55366 of 2003 Hajari Lal v. State of U.P., decided on 17.12.2003, Radhey Shyam Sharma v. State of U.P. 2005 (23) LCD 377 , and Writ C-No. 37617 of 2007 Mujahid v. State of U.P., decided on 14.8.2007, in which it has been held that in case election was contested on forged certificate, then bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution will not apply. Correctness of Hoti Lal's (supra) case has been doubted by Division Bench of this Court in Shamshuddin v. ADJ 2005 (58) ALR 736 (DB), and Hajari Lal's (supra) case. It shall be deemed to have been impliedly overruled. Correctness of Hoti Lal's (supra) case has been doubted by Division Bench of this Court in Shamshuddin v. ADJ 2005 (58) ALR 736 (DB), and Hajari Lal's (supra) case. It shall be deemed to have been impliedly overruled. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has been provided to do justice and not to thwart it as held by Supreme Court in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal (2002) 1 SCC 100 . The petitioner has committed fraud and is not entitled to equitable relief from this Court. In Kumari Madhuri Patil's case, Supreme Court provided for verification of caste certificate, six month prior to using it. The petitioner has not submitted his caste certificate for verification before Caste Scrutiny Committee, prior to using it The procedure for prior verification will not be observed for cancellation of caste certificate. Impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao (Dr.) (1993) 2 SCC 567 , held that "Fraud; is false representation by one who is aware that it was untrue with an intention to mislead the other who may act upon it to his prejudice and to the advantage of the representor. It is defined in Oxford Dictionary as, "using of false representations to obtain an unjust advantage or to injure the rights or interests of another". In Webster it is defined as, "deception in order to gain by another's loss; craft; trickery; guile; any artifice or deception practiced to cheat, deceive, or circumvent another to his injury'. It has been defined statutorily in section 17 of the Contract Act as including certain acts committed with connivance or with intent to deceive another. In Administrative Law it has been extended to failure to disclose all relevant and material facts which one has a positive duty to disclose. It is thus understood as deliberate act or omission to mislead the other to gain undue advantage. "It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right or in some manner to do him an injury" (Block's Law Dictionary). Effect of fraud on any proceeding, or transaction is that it becomes nullity. "It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right or in some manner to do him an injury" (Block's Law Dictionary). Effect of fraud on any proceeding, or transaction is that it becomes nullity. Even the most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Such being the nature and consequence of it the law requires not only strict pleading of it but strict proof as well. 9. Thus fraud cannot be inferred on mere allegation. The case of the petitioner is that his parents had been professing himself as "Kuraishi" from before his birth. In the school certificate, his caste was noted as "Kuraishi" at the time of his admission in the year 1964, although at that time, there was no reservation for "Kuraishi". The petitioner obtained Caste Certificate on the basis of School Leaving Certificate as well as his social status. The petitioner also examined several witnesses to prove that he belonged to "Kuraishi" caste. Both Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee and District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee concurrently held that proper inquiry has not been conducted. Tahsildar, in his report, remarked that the petitioner has fabricated his School Leaving Certificate without verifying it from original school record. He has mentioned that word "Islam" appears to be rub out. A copy of the School Leaving Certificate has been attached in the writ petition, which shows that word "Musalman" was written and thereafter in bracket word "Kuraishi" was written. Musalman is religion while Kuraishi is the caste. In case in place of Islam, Musalman has been written, then it does not give any benefit to the petitioner as Islam and Musalman both denote to the religion and not caste. In such circumstances, verification of original school record was necessary. Supreme Court in Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana 2010 (93) AIC 50 (SC) : 2010 (70) ACC 874 (SC) : (2010) 8 SCC 714 , held that an entry made in the official record by an official or person authorized in performance of an official duty is admissible under section 35 of the Evidence Act but the party may still ask the courtuthority to examine its probative value. Authenticity of the entry would depend as to on whose instruction/information such entry stood recorded and what was his source of information. Authenticity of the entry would depend as to on whose instruction/information such entry stood recorded and what was his source of information. In this case certified copies of khataunis 1330 F and 1347 F were not produced rather only report of Tahsildar dated 6.6.2011 has been relied upon. Tahsildar was not examined before District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee as such this report itself was not admissible in evidence. Apart from this report, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner belonged to "Pathan" caste. Oral evidence has not been considered on the ground that oral evidence of both the sides have been adduced. Finding of fact recorded by Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee, based upon inadmissible evidence and such a findings of fact is not binding upon this Court. 10. Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development AIR 1995 SC 94 , in para-graph-13 issued following directions "4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The Vigilance Officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. The Vigilance Officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc. 6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the Vigilance Officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or "doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgment due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it After giving such opportunity either in person or through Counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof." 11. State of Uttar Pradesh has issued Government Order by notification dated 5.1.1996 in which same procedure has been provided for verification of caste certificate by State Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee. Supreme Court again and again and recently in Collector v. Ajit Jogi AIR 2012 SC 44 : 2011 (108) AIC 5 (SC) (Sum.), directed State Government to verify caste certificate through a duly-constituted Scrutiny Committee, who shall now undertake the verification/scrutiny of the social status (tribal) certificates issued to the first respondent showing him as belonging to "Kanwar" Scheduled Tribes and decide the matter after giving due opportunity to the first respondent, uninfluenced by any observations by the Commission, the High Court or this Court. The State Government/Authorities concerned shall be entitled to take consequential action on the basis of the order/report of the Scrutiny Committee. Thus, the procedure has been framed for verification of caste certificate, by the Government Order, which is issued under Article 162 of the Constitution and has force of law. The procedure of verification of caste certificate as provided before availing the benefit will also apply for cancellation of caste certificate after availing benefit on its basis. Admittedly procedure as provided under Government Order dated 5.1.1996 has not been followed in this case. 12. It is well settled that when procedure has been provided for discharging a particular act then the act would be performed according to that procedure and not at all. This principle as held by Privy Council in Talor v. Talor (1876) 1 Ch. Div. 426, has been followed by Supreme Court time to time and in Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307 , in which it has been held that there can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes order/decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to a nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any belated stage of the proceedings including in appeal or execution. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/in executable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Acquiescence of a party equally should not be permitted to defeat the legislative animation. Such an issue can be raised at any belated stage of the proceedings including in appeal or execution. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/in executable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Acquiescence of a party equally should not be permitted to defeat the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. When a statute gives a right and provides a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act. When an Act creates a right or obligation and enforces the performance thereof in a specified manner, "that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner". Thus in case, the procedure has not been followed, then no estoppel will apply against the petitioner, as he had stated that order of District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee is legal. District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee also held that apart from the entries in the khatauni of third settlement, there was no evidence to prove that the petitioner belonged to Tathan" caste. In different revenue record, different caste had been mentioned as such it cannot be said that the petitioner did not belong to "Kuraishi" caste. The case law relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner in Hizwana Bono v. State of U.P. 2011 (85) ALR 288 PB), Rajvir Singh Both v. State of U.P. 2012 (30) LCD 1047 (DB), and Writ Petition No. 1261 (MB) of 2011 Kitabul Nisha v. State of U.P., decided on 21.11.2013 are fully applicable in this case. 13. So far as arguments of the Counsel for the respondent regarding availability of alternative remedy is concerned it has been held that alternative remedy is not absolute bar. In this case State Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction to pass stay order thus alternative remedy is no efficacious remedy. In this case, both the Committees have concurrently held that proper inquiry has not been conducted. As held above, procedure for conducting inquiry has not been followed. As such bar of alternative remedy will not apply in this matter. In this case, both the Committees have concurrently held that proper inquiry has not been conducted. As held above, procedure for conducting inquiry has not been followed. As such bar of alternative remedy will not apply in this matter. Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach (2013) 7 SCC 25 , held that High Court, rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the alternative remedy of appeal is not a bar in exercising that jurisdiction, since the order passed by the Joint Registrar was arbitrary and in clear violation of the second proviso to section 53(1) of the Act. 14. So far as burden of proof is concerned, Supreme Court in Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary (2003) 8 SCC 204 , held that the petitioner has challenged the status of respondent Dinesh Chaudhary as a Scheduled Castes person belonging to the SC community. Precisely what was indicated in support of that case is that the father of Dinesh Chaudhary and Naresh Chaudhary is Bhagwan Singh who is Kurmi by caste married to Jago Devi, also a Kurmi lady. The High Court has also observed that a person born in a Kurmi family normally would be presumed that he is Kurmi by caste. In this background the initial burden of the petitioner would stand discharged and it would shift upon the respondent to prove his case which, in normal course of things, would be and is within his special knowledge. As in this case both the parties are giving evidence as such opinion has to be formed after considering entire evidence on record. 15. The other point relating to bar contained under Article 243-O of the Constitution is not required to be decided at this stage as the orders of District Magistrate are consequential orders and have been passed due to order of Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee. As order of Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee is being set aside in this writ petition as such consequential orders of District Magistrate are also set aside. In view of the aforesaid discussions, Writ Petition No. 4964 (M/S) of 2014 and Writ Petition No. 3858 (M/S) of 2014 succeed and are allowed. As order of Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee is being set aside in this writ petition as such consequential orders of District Magistrate are also set aside. In view of the aforesaid discussions, Writ Petition No. 4964 (M/S) of 2014 and Writ Petition No. 3858 (M/S) of 2014 succeed and are allowed. The order of Divisional Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 13.6.2014 canceling the caste certificate of the petitioner and orders of District Magistrate dated 26.7.2014, ceasing financial power of the petitioner and 6.9.2014, constituting three members committee for exercising financial and administrative powers of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sarai Bharat Rai, block Shivgarh district Pratapgarh are set aside. District Magistrate shall restore the powers of the petitioner as Pradhan forthwith. The matter is remanded to District Level, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pratapgarh, who shall conduct fresh inquiry according to the procedure given in Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development AIR 1995 SC 94 , and Government Order dated 6.1.1996 issued by State of U.P. Fresh inquiry may be conducted expeditiously and after giving opportunity of evidence and hearing to the parties fresh order be passed as early as possible.