Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1328 (ALL)

Shaba @ Munni v. Distt & Sess. Judge Barabanki

2019-05-15

RAJAN ROY

body2019
JUDGMENT : RAJAN ROY, J. 1. Short Counter Affidavit has been filed, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ravi Nath Tilhari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jagdish Prasad Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Dwijendra Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and Sri R. K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4. 3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Consolidation of India challenging the order passed by the Revisional Authority under Section 12-C(6) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act 1947’) i.e. the District Judge, Barabanki, in Revision No. 58 of 2016; Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another dated 12.04.2017. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner herein filed his nomination for election to the office of Gram Pradhan and was elected as Gram Pradhan as a candidate belonging to the OBC category for which the concerned Gram Pranchayat was reserved in terms of Section 11-A read with Section 12-b(5) of the Act 1947 and the relevant Rules in this regard. The opposite party no. 3 herein, the runner up in the said election, filed an election petition whereupon notices were issued to the petitioner who raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition stating therein that the only ground on which the election had been challenged was that the Caste Certificate of the petitioner had been obtained fraudulently as he did not belong to the OBC category, but, validity of the Caste Certificate could not be seen by the Prescribed Authority in an election petition under Section 12-C(1) of the Act 1947, therefore, the petition was not maintainable. 5. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the petition vide judgment dated 02.07.2016. A revision under section 12-C(6) was filed by the opposite party no.3 which was allowed vide judgment dated 12.4.2017 and the matter was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for consideration afresh. Being aggrieved this writ petition has been filed. 6. 5. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the petition vide judgment dated 02.07.2016. A revision under section 12-C(6) was filed by the opposite party no.3 which was allowed vide judgment dated 12.4.2017 and the matter was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for consideration afresh. Being aggrieved this writ petition has been filed. 6. The moot point which falls for consideration in this case is as to whether the election petition of the opposite party no.3 before the Prescribed Authority, challenging the election of the petitioner-Gram Pradhan on the ground that the caste-certificate was false and fabricated and that she did not belong to the 'O.B.C. Category', therefore her election as Gram Pradhan against a seat reserved for the 'O.B.C. Category' was invalid, was maintainable or not ? 7. The Prescribed Authority after issuing notice to the petitioner herein who was the defendant before him held that the validity of a caste certificate cannot be seen by her, therefore, the election petition was not maintainable. Accordingly vide order dated 2.7.2016 she dismissed the election petition. 8. Being aggrieved the opposite party no.3 herein filed a revision. The revisional authority i.e. the District Judge considered the provisions of sections 11A, 12(5) and 12(c) and arrived at the conclusion that one of the grounds on which the election of a Gram Pradhan could be challenged under section 12-C(1) was improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination and the other was gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act 1947 and the Rules made thereunder. He opined that if a candidate not belonging to the O.B.C. category had contested the election as a reserved category candidate belonging to the said category and his nomination for such seat was accepted, then, if ultimately, it is found that he did not belong to the O.B.C. category, it would be a case of improper acceptance of nomination and the election petition would be maintainable. He also opined that in such a situation as a candidate, who did not belong to the reserved category, got elected illegally against a seat reserved for the Reserved Category in terms of section 11-A, then the other ground i.e. gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Rules would also be available, therefore, the Revisional Authority vide his judgment dated 12.4.2017 opined that an election petition would lie and the caste status claimed by the candidate as also the veracity of the caste-certificate could be seen by the Election Tribunal. In fact the revisional authority even went a step ahead and entered into merits of the issue pertaining to caste status of the petitioner, who was the defendant in the election petition, and recorded prima facie observations against the petitioner's claim of belonging to the O.B.C. category. This is also one of the objections raised by Sri Tilahri, Advocate whose primary objection is that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, (1994) 6 SCC 241 , once a caste certificate is issued and has not been cancelled, then it is not open for the Prescribed Authority in an election petition under section 12-C(1) of the Act 1947 to look into its validity nor to look into the validity of the caste status of the election petition, therefore, the election petition was not maintainable in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) wherein it had been held that any challenge to the caste status of a person, the remedy would be before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and thereafter before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in view of subsequent decision in the case of Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & ors., (2012) 1 SCC 333 , in an intra court appeal, if the occasion so arose, but no other proceedings whether before the Civil Court or other authority was maintainable. 9. 9. The contention of Sri Ravi Nath Tilhari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the Caste Certificate dated 09.11.2015 issued to the petitioner from Nawabganj Tehsil, District-Barabanki certifying that the petitioner belonged to the OBC category i.e. the very category for which the Gram Panchayat concerned was reserved, is still intact and had not been cancelled, therefore, it being valid proof of the petitioner's caste unless it is set-aside its validity can not be a ground for maintaining an election petition before the Prescribed Authority, who has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of such Caste Certificates, but, this aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Revisional Authority, who, by remanding the matter back to the Prescribed Authority has conferred jurisdiction upon such an authority for deciding the validity of the petitioner’s Caste Certificate and his Caste, which, in law, is not vested in him. He has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2015 (7) SCC 960, Zuari Cement Limited v. Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hyderabad & ors., to contend that jurisdiction can neither by conferred by acquiescence or consent nor by the Courts where, as per law, it does not lie. 10. On the question that a writ court would not interfere with an order of remand his submission was that in view of the patent and fundamental illegality pointed out interference was necessary, specially as, the order of remand by the Revisional Authority is not an order simplicitor but accompanied by findings recorded by the Revisional Authority, therefore, the remand order is liable to be interfered. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (20) LCD 248, Rajit Ram v. Mahadeo Singh, in this regard. 11. Sri Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.3 on the other hand invited attention of the Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) to drive home the point that in fact the caste certificate issued to the petitioner and the nomination filed by him based thereon for contesting the election to the office of Gram Pradhan against a seat reserved for O.B.C. category was not in terms of the said decision and therefore the acceptance of nomination itself was invalid and contrary to the Act 1947. His submission was that as per the dictum in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) the caste certificate should have been issued 6 months prior to the date of nomination. It is for the candidate seeking election to move an application for verification of the said caste certificate before the Caste Scrutiny Committee as directed in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) so that the status of the candidate i.e. whether he belongs to the concerned reserved category or not is verified by the Committee within the period of 6 months so as to avoid any further dispute in this regard. His submission was that not having adopted this procedure and having obtained the caste certificate barely few days prior to his nomination such caste certificate should not have been taken into consideration by the election officer as it was de hors the mandatory directions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 12. 12. It was also his contention that though in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) the directions contained in paragraph 13 thereof were in the context of admission to a seat in an educational institution or appointment to a post or service, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hizwana Bano v. State of U.P. & ors., 2011 (1) ADJ 440 , after considering the government order dated 5.1.1996, especially paragraph 3 thereof, has already held, firstly, that the said government order was in sync with the directions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra), secondly, the procedure prescribed therein was applicable not only with regard to admissions in educational institutions and appointments on a post of service, but also for other reasons where the benefits of reservation is sought by the beneficiaries, therefore, the procedure prescribed in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) applies even in a case where a candidate seeks to contest election to an office of Gram Pradhan reserved under the Act 1947 for a particular reserved category and any caste certificate issued de hors the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) without any verification of the same by the Caste Scrutiny Committee could not be the basis for filing nomination for election to such an office, therefore, if it had been accepted, not only his nomination was improperly accepted, but there was violation of the Act 1947 and the Rules 1947 and the declarations/directions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) and those in Hizwana Bano (supra) and other decisions are to be read into the provision of the said Act 1947 and Rules made thereunder which do not contain anything to the contrary to prohibit or prevent the adoption of such procedure so far as the caste certificate and its verification is concerned. 13. 13. Sri Dwijendra Mishra, Advocate also relied upon the decision of this Court in Hoti Lal's case wherein, according to him, it had been held that section 95(1)(g) (iiia) which provided a ground for removal of the Gram Pradhan if he had illegally obtained the benefit of reservation for getting elected and continuing on said office, as ultra vires, on the ground that this issue could only be seen in an election petition in view of the constitutional provisions contained in Article 243-Z(o) and other relevant provisions contained in Act 1947 including section 11-A, 12(5) and section 12-C(1). 14. Sri Dwijendra Mishra, learned Advocate submitted that the caste certificate was issued to the petitioner on 9.11.2015 by the Tehsildar Nawabganj, District Barabanki on the basis of an earlier caste certificate issued by the concerned authority at Unnao, which on an application being moved by his client was cancelled, to which Sri Tilahri stated that this was an ex parte exercise without any notice to the petitioner and all that was done was to notify on the website that the caste certificate issued at Unnao had been cancelled. He also informed that in this regard a suit for injunction was filed by the petitioner before the Civil Court at Unnao. 15. In this context Sri Tilahri, Advocate submitted that Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) was not taken into consideration by this Court in Hoti Lal's case where this issue was neither raised nor argued nor decided, therefore, the said decision could not be a binding precedent on this issue as to the maintainability of an election petition. 16. Sri R.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission submitted that as far as the role of the Election Commission is concerned, it is limited to superintendence, direction and control of Elections in terms of the constitutional provisions and the Act 1947 as also the Rules made thereunder. 16. Sri R.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission submitted that as far as the role of the Election Commission is concerned, it is limited to superintendence, direction and control of Elections in terms of the constitutional provisions and the Act 1947 as also the Rules made thereunder. He especially referred to the Rules known as 'U.P. Panchayat Raj (Election of Members, Pradhan and Up-Pradhans) Rules 1994' as also the 'U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules 1994 (hereinafter referred as ‘Election Disputes Rules 1994') which have been made under section 110 of the Act 1947 to contend that there is no provision in the Constitution or the Act 1947 or the Rules made thereunder, in terms of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra), however, on being pointed out as to the mandatory and binding nature of the direction issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra), especially as per the clarification in this regard in the subsequent decision in Dayaram's case (Supra) and the fact that there was no contrary provision in the aforesaid enactment/Rules, nor any bar, learned counsel fairly submitted that the binding directions cannot be ignored, but said that it would be appropriate if relevant amendments are made in the Act 1947 or the Rules made thereunder for its smooth implementation. 17. Sri J.P. Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the State also accepted the binding and mandatory nature of the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) as clarified by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Daya Ram (Supra) as also the recent decision reported in 2017 (8) SCC 670 , Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & ors., wherein according to him, the directions given in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) found affirmation in the context of admission to educational institutions, although in the said case pertaining to the State of Maharashtra statutory enactment namely Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukt Jaati), Nomadic Tribes, other backward classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act 2000, had been passed by the State Legislature. 18. 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records this Court finds that the appropriate procedure for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval has been dealt with and laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra). Paragraphs 13 & 14 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: "13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following: 1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (11) 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. 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 pro forma, 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. 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 acknowledgement 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-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. 10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post. 14. Since this procedure could be fair and just and shorten the undue delay and also prevent avoidable expenditure for the State on the education of the candidate admitted/appointed on false social status or further continuance therein, every State concerned should endeavour to give effect to it and see that the constitutional objectives intended for the benefit and advancement of the genuine Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or backward classes, as the case may be are not defeated by unscrupulous persons." 19. As is evident from a bare reading of the aforesaid extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) the object behind the directions and procedure laid down therein is to protect the constitutional rights of the reserved category candidates albeit in the context of admissions to educational institutions and appointment to posts/service in a way that genuine candidates belonging to the reserved category are not denied the benefits of reservation and ineligible or spurious persons do not usurp the benefits made for the reserved category fraudulently and illegally. One of the objectives sought to be achieved is as observed by the Supreme Court – "The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee.” It is keeping this in mind that the directions have been issued by the Supreme Court and as per Direction No.3 after obtaining Social Status Certificate (Caste Certificate), the applicant who had applied for grant of caste-certificate is required to apply for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee six months in advance. The object is obviously that during this six months’ period after caste certificate has been obtained by the applicant, he gets the same verified by a Scrutiny Committee so that whatever disputes arise in this regard are settled within six months prior to the actual admission or appointment, as the case may be, so as to avoid a scenario where illegal appointments or admissions are gained by the candidates belonging to Unreserved or General category and thereafter the proceedings are prolonged and benefits are reaped by them, thereby compromising the constitutional objectives. Now in Direction No.13(4) the Supreme Court has mentioned the constitution of such Caste Scrutiny Committee which is to comprise of high ranking officials of relevant departments to facilitate a fair, legal and just decision. In paragraphs-13(5) and 13(6) the procedure for verification is mentioned. In Direction No.7 of para-13 it has been provided that in case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be forged or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event same procedure as is envisaged in para-6 be followed according to which after making such inquiry as is mentioned in sub-paragraph-6 of paragraph 13 the Committee may consider the claim viz.-a-viz. the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 20. the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 20. In view of a subsequent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Hizwana Bano's case (supra) as also the observations in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) itself, during this process of verification of caste certificate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee objections can be raised by an aggrieved person to the said caste certificate before the said Committee itself or in the event of no verification having been done, independent of it a bona fide complainant having locus to do so can maintain a complaint before the same Committee with regard to the caste status of the candidate. As per sub-para 9 of paragraph 13 in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) the inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding 2 months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, it should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within 1 month from the date of conclusion of the proceedings the result of inquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. 21. Now as per sub-para 10 of para 13 in order to allay a situation where the verification proceedings may get delayed the Supreme Court has provided that in case of any delay in finalizing the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an office post is expiring the candidate can be admitted by the Principal or such authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment could be only provisional subject to the result of the inquiry by Screening Committee. Thereafter in sub-paras 11 and 12 the Supreme Court has held that the order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that no suit or other proceedings before any authority may lie. It is on sub-para 11 and 12 of para 13 that Sri Tilahri laid great emphasis in support of his contention as already noticed herein above. 22. It is on sub-para 11 and 12 of para 13 that Sri Tilahri laid great emphasis in support of his contention as already noticed herein above. 22. As regards the direction contained in sub-para 13 of para 13 the same have been considered by the Supreme Court in Dayaram's case (Supra) wherein it has been held that an intra court appeal would lie against the order passed in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution of India, therefore, to this extent the direction in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) stands clarified and declared as not good law. 23. In para 14 and 15, the consequential action to be taken in the event social status claimed is found forged and fictitious etc. is mentioned. 24. In paragraph 14 of the judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) after laying down the procedure in paragraph 13 it has been observed that since this procedure could be fair and just to shorten the undue delay and also to prevent vital expenditure for the State on the education of the candidate admitted/appointed on false social status or further continuance therein, every State concerned should endeavour to give effect to it and see that the constitutional objective intended for the benefit and advancement of the genuine Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe or Backward Classes, as the case may be, are not defeated by unscrupulous persons. 25. It is not out of place to mention that after the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) on 2.9.1994 the State government issued a government order dated 5.1.1996 which is in tune with the directions issued by the Supreme Court as noticed in this case and it has been held to be so by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hizwana Bano (supra) wherein the said government order has been quoted and approved. In Hizwana Bano's case (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has held that the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) have been issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and are binding till such time the State makes a law to that effect. In Hizwana Bano's case (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has held that the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) have been issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and are binding till such time the State makes a law to that effect. In paragraphs 7,8,9,10, and 11 it has also been held, after considering para 3 of the aforesaid government order, that verification is not only with regard to admission in any educational institution or appointment in any service, but also for other reasons, meaning thereby, in every case where the benefit of reservation is being sought whether for admission/appointment/election etc., the procedure prescribed in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) as reiterated and followed by the State Government in its government order dated 5.1.1996, which is applicable to all cases, would apply. 26. The Division Bench further observed whenever a person seeks to rely on a caste-certificate for claiming any benefit, then in that event, if a complainant intervenes to oppose the verification of such caste-certificate or independently applies before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the procedure for verification shall be followed and necessary orders shall be passed by the Committee after following due procedure, meaning thereby, after obtaining caste certificate which should have been obtained six months prior to the admission/appointment and in the case of election, six months prior to filing nomination and prior to six months itself he should have filed an application for getting the caste certificate verified from the Caste Scrutiny Committee and in this process of verification the complainant can file his objections or if no verification has taken place, he can maintain a complaint independently before the Caste Scrutiny Committee as per Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) as already mentioned earlier. 27. The Division Bench also held that in a case of fraud a complaint or application for cancelling the Caste certificate would also lie before the Authority issuing th caste-certificate, but in other cases i.e. not covered by fraud, the remedy would be only before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and thereafter before the Writ Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India and before no other Court nor any other proceeding would lie in this regard. 28. 28. This issue further came up consideration before another Division Bench in the case of Om Prakash v. State of U.P. & ors., 2011(2) UPLBEC 1694, wherein the Division Bench took the same view as has been mentioned hereinabove. Similar view was taken by another Division Bench in the case of Rajesh Kuamar Gond (supra). 29. This issue again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K. Jogi & ors., 2011 (10) SCC 357 wherein after noticing the earlier decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) and concurring with it, it was held that verification of the validity of caste certificates and determination of the caste status should therefore be done by the Scrutiny Committee constituted as per the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) or in terms of the statute made by the appropriate Government in that behalf. 30. In view of the above, the Revisional Authority’s judgment in so far as it holds that the Prescribed Authority is competent to decide the caste status and/or validity of the Caste certificate, is in ignorance of the decisions referred hereinabove and his observations on merits of the caste status of petitioner are also not sustainable. Such issues are required to be adjudicated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 31. Reference may also be made in this regard to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kurapati Maria Das v. Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samjan & ors., (2009) 7 SCC 387 , wherein the Supreme Court felt the necessity and urgency for getting the caste certificates of all the elected persons from reserved constituency to be examined within a time-frame to avoid such controversies as had arisen in the said case where a person got elected against reserved seat illegally and thereafter the proceedings prolonged allowing the person to reap the benefits of reservation undeservedly, illegally and unconstitutionally. Paras 39 and 40 of the said decision are quoted hereinbelow : "39. Shri Gupta then contended that there was no opportunity for the writ petitioners to challenge the caste as the application filed by them for cancellation of the Caste before the authority under 1993 Act was never decided. It was pointed out that such application was filed on 18.04.2006 and various representations were also made to various authorities. Shri Gupta then contended that there was no opportunity for the writ petitioners to challenge the caste as the application filed by them for cancellation of the Caste before the authority under 1993 Act was never decided. It was pointed out that such application was filed on 18.04.2006 and various representations were also made to various authorities. We are not concerned with the various representations made to any other authority. However, if an application under Section 5 of the 1993 Act was made to the proper authority it was bound to be enquired into. However, taking the advantage that it was not decided for four months, the writ petitioners could not have rushed with the writ petition. At the most, the writ petitioners could have asked for a direction to the said authority for deciding that application one way or the other. That was not done. If that application had been decided upon and the concerned authority had found that the appellant's caste certificate itself was false and fraudulent and he did not genuinely belong to the Scheduled Caste then that itself could have been enough for the appellant to lose the post that he was elected to. 40. In our opinion, it is necessary to get examined the Caste certificates of all the elected persons from reserved constituencies within a time frame to avoid such controversies. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the High Court clearly erred firstly, entertaining the writ petition, secondly in going into the disputed question of fact regarding the caste status, thirdly, in holding that the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste and fourthly, in allowing the writ petition." 32. Thus verification/examination of caste certificates of all the elected persons from reserved constituencies is necessarily to be made within a time-frame as per the above referred judicial mandate. 33. Now as far as the State of U.P. is concerned, as already stated earlier, a government order was issued way back on 5.1.1996 with reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra). A Caste Scrutiny Committee was also constituted by the said government order as is evident from Clause 3 thereof. 33. Now as far as the State of U.P. is concerned, as already stated earlier, a government order was issued way back on 5.1.1996 with reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra). A Caste Scrutiny Committee was also constituted by the said government order as is evident from Clause 3 thereof. A Division Bench of this Court in Hizwana Bano's case (supra) has already held that the said government order was in terms of Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) and that it was applicable not only for appointments and admissions, but for other reasons also i.e. wherever the benefit of reservation is being sought which would include election matters also. Neither of the counsels appearing for the parties including the State counsels could place before the Court any statutory enactment by the State Legislature in line with the directions issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) and Kurapati Maria Das (supra) for verification of caste certificate, therefore, it is the said government order dated 5.1.1996 which is operative and is binding for the reasons which are quite obvious. It is informed that subsequently vide government orders dated 27.1.2011 and 28.2.2011 Caste Scrutiny Committee was created at the District and the Divisional level also where the procedure prescribed in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) is to be followed. Thus, against a decision by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee appeal lies to the Divisional Level Committee and then to the State Level Committee. These District and Divisional Level Committees have been constituted to give effect to the decision in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra), in pursuance to directions issued by this Court in the case of Taramuni Tharu v. State of U.P. & ors. (Writ Petition No.1611 (MB) of 2008) and P.I.L. No.1396 of 2011, Tharu Shakti Samiti & anr. v. State of U.P., as has been noticed in the decision of the case of Om Prakash (supra). 34. As regards the enactment known as the U.P. Janhit Guarantee Adhiniyam 2011, as would be evident from its long title, the said Act was passed by the U.P. Legislature to provide for the delivery of services to the people of the State within stipulated time-limit and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. As per section 2(e) service has been defined to mean any service notified under section 3. As per section 2(e) service has been defined to mean any service notified under section 3. Now section 3 provides that the State Government may, from time to time, notify the services, designated officers, First Appellate Officers, Second Appellate Authority and stipulated time limits therefor. As per notification dated 14.1.2011 referable to section 3 of the Act 2011 and the Schedule given therein at serial No.1 (corresponding Column 3) the service mentioned is "Caste Certificate". The designated officer i.e. the officer to issue the Caste Certificate is mentioned as "Tehsildar". In corresponding column 5 the time-limit for issuance of the certificate is 20 days. Thereafter the first appeal is provided before the S.D.M. who has to decide it within 30 days and the second appeal before the District Magistrate. The scope of the said Act is to provide services within stipulated time-limit and on failure, to remedy the same in appeal. It does not lay down any procedure whatsoever to be followed for issuing the caste certificate or for its verification in terms of Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra), therefore there is no conflict between the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) as reiterated by the State Government in its government order dated 5.1.1996 etc. and the said Act 2011, so far as the procedure for issuance of caste certificate and its verification by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is concerned, meaning thereby, the directions of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India continue to be applicable in the absence of any statutory provision in this regard just as the government orders issued in terms thereof continue to operate for the said purpose. In this context it was argued by Sri Dwijendra Mishra that so far as the Act 2011 is concerned, the same covers the field so far as it relates to issuance of caste-certificate and has nothing to do with verification of caste-certificate, therefore, he says that the government orders which are in tune with Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) are fully applicable. The Court agrees with the submission of Sri Dwijendra Mishra, Advocate on this count. 35. The provision for reservation of seats in Panchayats is contained in Part IX of the Constitution of India i.e. Article 243-D and section 11-A of the Act 1947 read with section 12(5) thereof. The Court agrees with the submission of Sri Dwijendra Mishra, Advocate on this count. 35. The provision for reservation of seats in Panchayats is contained in Part IX of the Constitution of India i.e. Article 243-D and section 11-A of the Act 1947 read with section 12(5) thereof. Under section 110 of the Act 1947 Rules have been made known as the “U.P. Panchayat Raj (Election of Members, Pradhans and Up-Pradhans) Rules 1994”. The said Rules insofar they relate to the office of Gram Pradhan provide for notices of election and fixing of dates of election under Rule 68, presentation of nomination papers under Rule 69. Rule 69(1) provides that a member person who desires to be nominated as a candidate at an election, shall deliver either in person or by his Nirvachan Abhikarta to the Nirvachan Adhikari on the date and the place and during the hours fixed under Rule 68 a nomination paper duly completed in the specified form. In addition to the aforesaid there are other Rules made under section 110 of the Act 1947 known as the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Reservation and allotment of seats and offices) Rules 1994” relating to reservation and allotment of seats as referred in section 11-A etc. of the Act 1947. 36. The State Election Commission is a Constitutional Body and under Article 243-K of the Constitution. The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats is vested in it. The words “superintendence, direction and control” appearing therein are para-materia with similar provisions contained in Article 324 in context of the Election Commission of India and the said words have been held in the broadest of term by the Supreme Court in several decisions including in Special Reference No. 1 of 2002, reported in AIR 2003 SC 87 and Mohinder Singh Gill & ors. v. The Chief Election Commissioner & ors., (1978) 2 SCR 272 . 37. v. The Chief Election Commissioner & ors., (1978) 2 SCR 272 . 37. The Supreme Court in the case of Kishansingh Tomar v. Municipal Corporaton of the City of Ahmedabad & ors., AIR 2007 SC 269 while considering a para materia provision relating to Municipalities contained in Article 243-Z-A(1) and Article 243-A pertaining to the Panchayats has already held that powers of the State Election Commission in respect of conduct of elections is no less than that of the Election Commission of India in their respective domains. These powers are, of course, subject to the law made by the Parliament or by State Legislature provided the same do not encroach upon the plenary powers of the said Election Commission. The State Election Commissions are functioning independent of the concerned State Governments in the matter of their powers of superintendence, direction and control of all elections and preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of elections to the Panchayats and Municipalities. 38. When the learned counsel for the Election Commission and the State during the course of hearing of this petition were asked as to why the dictum/direction of the Supreme Court as followed by this Court in Hizwana Bano’s case (supra) is not being implemented in election matters, they had no reply. 39. On a perusal of the provisions of the Act 1947 and the Rules made thereunder this Court finds that there is no provision as to how a caste-certificate is to be issued or is to be verified for the purposes of giving effect to reservation in Panchayats, therefore, it seems that the relevant government orders issued in this regard for application generally, are the ones which hold the field. The provisions of law referred above merely contain a provision for reservation of certain seats for various reserved categories. 40. In view of the above, the modalities for verification of the caste certificate issued as per the prevailing government orders in the State of U.P. for the purposes of Elections to the Gram Panchayats, can be worked out either by issuance of a specific government order by the State or by issuing directives by the State Election Commission itself as in doing so there would be no conflict with any provision of the Constitution or the aforesaid Act and Rules. 41. 41. Now in this scenario when this Court considers the matter, first of all it finds that the State Government as also the State Election Commission need to sensitize themselves and implement the directions of the supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) as clarified in the subsequent decision in Dayaram's case (Supra), by issuing necessary directions in this regard pertaining to elections to the office of Gram Pradhan etc. so as to avoid a scenario of non-implementation of the same thereby compromising the constitutional objectives as already noticed in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) and as is also necessary in view of the dictum in Kurapati Maria Das (supra). 42. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that as there is no specific provision in the Constitution or the Act 1947 nor the Rules made thereunder for verification of the caste certificates, therefore, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) and in the Case of Kuarapati Maria Das (supra) it is imperative for the State Election Commission or the State Government, as the case may be, to issue necessary directions for compliance of the dictum contained therein in the context of election to Panchayats as has already been discussed hereinabove. If any amendment in the Rules made under the Act 1947 is found necessary in this regard this can be done, as early as possible. 43. For providing the benefit of reservation in election to the office of Gram Pradhan etc. under the Act 1947 a possible course could be to prescribe that a candidate intending to contest an election to the said office should get a caste-certificate issued in terms of Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) and the government orders dated 5.1.1996, 27.1.2011 and 28.2.2011, six months prior to the date of nomination and the candidate should also file an application before the Caste Scrutiny Committee in terms of the aforesaid government orders which are in tune with the dictum in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) for its verification, six months in advance i.e. 6 months prior to the nomination. During this period a decision should be taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee within the time-period stipulated in Mathuri Patil’s case (supra) and the government orders referred herein so that during the said period if any further remedy is to be availed either by the applicant or the objector/complainant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, same may also be availed. Objections to such verification can also be filed by others in this very process of verification or independently by a complainant, before the committee in the event verification has not taken place as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court Hizwana Bano’s case (supra). The intent is that disputes pertaining to the caste status of a candidate, as far as possible, should be decided prior to the election so as to avoid or minimize election disputes on this count. If this procedure is followed, the constitutional objective spoken of in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) observations expressed in this regard in the case of Kurapati Maria Das (supra) would be better served and protected. 44. If a decision is taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee as aforesaid, holding that the caste certificate is invalid, then the candidate’s nomination can be rejected subject to any challenge to such decision under section 226. Even if the decision comes after declaration of result and the candidate is declared elected, this can be a basis for challenging the election against a reserved seat by way of an Election Petition as then the Prescribed Authority would not be required to adjudicate the caste status or the validity of the caste certificate in proceedings under section 12-C, but will only act upon the decision already taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee subject to any challenge to it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thus, there will be no violation of the dictum of the Supreme Court and the directions issued by it under Article 142. If a favourable decision is taken by the Committee then the remedy for the affected person would be to challenge such decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereafter if the occasion so arises to challenge the election under section 12-C, subject to the limitation prescribed. If a favourable decision is taken by the Committee then the remedy for the affected person would be to challenge such decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereafter if the occasion so arises to challenge the election under section 12-C, subject to the limitation prescribed. In such a scenario the extraordinary remedy of a writ of quo warranto may also be available in a given case, subject to the limitations attracted to such proceedings. Hence, the necessity of implementing the directions of the Supreme Court in the context of election to the post of Gram Pradhan etc. against a reserved seat under the Act 1947, so that benefits of Reservation are not reaped undeservedly and illegally. 45. Now when this Court considers the case at hand in the background of the aforesaid discussion, the first and foremost feature which strikes the Court is that the petitioner had obtained the caste certificate of O.B.C. category on 9.11.2015 i.e. after issuance of the notification of the State Election Commission dated 7.11.2015 notifying the elections, a copy of which has been placed before the Court by Sri Chaudhary and has been kept on record, and barely a few days before filing his nomination papers for which the date was fixed as 27nd and 28th of November 2015, meaning thereby, neither the caste certificate was obtained six months prior to the date of nomination nor was any application for verification filed by the petitioner in terms of Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) nor was the caste certificate got verified. The petitioner was declared elected as Gram Pradhan. The opposite party no.3 filed an election petition before the Prescribed Authority which as stated earlier was dismissed on 2.7.2016 on the ground that the validity of the caste certificate could not be seen by her. The Revisional Authority on the other hand took another view of the matter and held that it could be seen, accordingly, it set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority. It is on 29.7.2016 that the opposite party no.3 filed a complaint before the District Magistrate who, according to him, is the Chairman of the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, which is still being processed. It is on 29.7.2016 that the opposite party no.3 filed a complaint before the District Magistrate who, according to him, is the Chairman of the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, which is still being processed. Till date there is no decision by the Caste Scrutiny Committee either verifying the caste certificate issued to the petitioner or deciding otherwise to cancel it, and the petitioner is functioning as Pradhan, although it is equally true that the petitioner's caste-certificate itself is not in terms of Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) in the sense there has been no verification of it, which is also necessary even in view of the decision in the case of Kurapati Maria Das (supra) as quoted earlier. 46. As the opposite party No.3 has already challenged the caste certificate issued to the petitioner before the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee headed by the District Magistrate, therefore, considering the the fact that the caste certificate issued to the petitioner was never verified in terms of Madhuri Patil (supra) and the government order dated 5.1.1986 etc. and it is necessary to do so in view of the dictum of the Supreme Court in Kurapati Maria Das (supra), the ends of justice require that the proceedings of the election petition be allowed to take place and in the interregnum the proceedings for verification of the caste certificate be held by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, thereafter, based on its decision and the discussion made hereinabove, the Prescribed Authority shall take a decision on the election petition as per law. This would secure the ends of justice. 47. The observations of the Revisional Authority wherein he has held the Prescribed Authority to be competent to decide the validity of the caste certificate of the petitioner (without any decision by the Caste Scrutiny Committee) are set aside and are substituted by the reasonings given in this judgment but the operative portion of his order setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority is maintained for the foregoing reasons for a reconsideration of the election petition as aforesaid. 48. As regards contention of Sri Tilahri that the election petition itself was not maintainable, the Court for the reasons aforesaid, is not persuaded to accept this argument at this stage, therefore, this question is left to be raised before the Prescribed Authority after the result of Caste Scrutiny Committee is made available. 49. 48. As regards contention of Sri Tilahri that the election petition itself was not maintainable, the Court for the reasons aforesaid, is not persuaded to accept this argument at this stage, therefore, this question is left to be raised before the Prescribed Authority after the result of Caste Scrutiny Committee is made available. 49. In the case of Hotilal it has already been held that section 95(1)(g) (iiia) of the Act 1947 is ultra vires, meaning thereby, proceedings for removal of the petitioner on the ground of having illegally obtained benefit of reservations for the office of Gram Pradhan are not maintainable and the only remedy available is by way of an election petition, but, in view of Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) as followed by this Court in Hizwana Bano and other cases, the Prescribed Authority can not determine the validity of petitioner’s Caste Certificate, which can only be done by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, but there has to be some reedy in such matters, hence it is necessary to have the caste certificate of the petitioner verified by such Committee, especially as, this process is already on, before the District Level Committee. The Supreme Court in Kurapati Maria Das (supra) has emphasised the examination/verification of candidates elected against reserved constituencies, obviously to further and protect the constitutional objectives in this regard. 50. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case it is provided that the District Caste Scrutiny Committee shall undertake an exercise for verification of the caste-certificate issued to the petitioner on 9.11.2015 by Tehsildar Nawabganj, District Barabanki, in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) and the provisions of the government order dated 5.1.1996, 27.1.2011 and 28.2.2011 in tune therewith and shall complete this verification procedure within 2 months. On completion of this procedure, the decision taken by the said Committee, subject to any challenge made in appeal or under Article 226 of the constitution of India and in an intra court appeal, as the case may be, in terms of the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) and Dayaram's case (supra), shall be communicated by the Committee to the Prescribed Authority i.e. the S.D.M., Nawabganj, who shall thereafter proceed to consider the election petition based on the pleadings and grounds taken therein which will include the question of its maintainability, as, in this scenario he would not be required to consider the validity of the caste-certificate nor the caste status of the petitioner, but would only have to take into consideration the decision taken by the Committee and would record its conclusions after hearing the concerned parties and referring to the pleadings, grounds and evidence in this regard in the light of the provisions contained in section 12-C and such other provisions of the Act as may be relevant. This will serve the constitutional/statutory objective as also the dictum of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) and in Kurapati Maria Das case (supra). If any appeal is filed against the decision of the District Committee, the same shall be decided with expedition, say within 2 months. 51. For the reasons aforesaid the order of the Revisional Authority is modified in the light of what has been held hereinabove. The election petition would be maintainable before the Prescribed Authority only in the circumstances and scenarios as mentioned hereinabove, and not otherwise. 52. Sri J.P. Maurya, learned Addl. C.S.C. shall communicate this decision to the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of U.P. for compliance. 53. Sri R.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the State Election Commission shall also communicate this decision to the Commission for compliance. 54. The writ petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms.