Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1642 (RAJ)

Suman Rani v. Urmila

2023-09-02

REKHA BORANA

body2023
ORDER : 1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 09.05.2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Sangaria in Election Petition No. 3/2021 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC as preferred by the defendant has been rejected. 2. The facts of the case are that an election petition was preferred by the plaintiff with an averment that the defendant who was the elected candidate, obtained a forged caste certificate wherein she had been specified to be of Scheduled Castes (SC) category whereas she does not belong to the said category. It was further averred that the post of Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat, Ratanpura was reserved for a female of scheduled caste category and as the defendant did not belong to the said category, she could not have contested the election. A prayer for cancellation of the result being illegal and further for declaration of the plaintiff as Sarpanch had been prayed for. 3. In the said petition, an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was preferred by the defendant with the following averments: First, the defendant very well belongs to the scheduled caste category as her husband is a bonafide resident of Rajasthan and belongs to scheduled caste. She being wife of resident of State of Rajasthan belonging to the scheduled caste category, was entitled to contest the election. Therefore, the plaintiff did not have the cause of action to prefer the present suit. Secondly, the petition was preferred after expiry of limitation as stipulated for presentation of an election petition. Thirdly, the mandatory provisions of Rules 80, 81 and 82 sub-Rule (1) & (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules of 1996') having not been complied with, the relief as prayed for by the plaintiff could not be granted and hence the petition was barred by law. 4. The said application as preferred by the defendant has been rejected by the Court below firstly on the ground that the alleged caste certificate, whether was forged or not, could only be decided after the evidence being led on the same. So far as the fact whether the defendant, an elected candidate, was entitled to contest the election or not was also a mixed question of fact and law and could be decided only after the evidence being led. 5. So far as the fact whether the defendant, an elected candidate, was entitled to contest the election or not was also a mixed question of fact and law and could be decided only after the evidence being led. 5. So far as the cause of action is concerned, the Court below while relying upon the judgment of Prem v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11093/2020 (decided on 24.09.2020), observed that a person migrated from other State is not entitled to the benefits available to the resident of migrated State on the basis of caste. Meaning thereby, a person of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe category of one State would not be entitled to the benefits of the said category in another State. The Court therefore, held that the plaintiff did have a cause of action to file the present election petition. 6. So far as the issue of limitation and compliance of the Rules of the Rules of 1996 is concerned, the Court below held that the defendant failed to show any reason as to how the petition was barred by limitation/law and further that the compliance of the Rules of 1996 was very well made. It is the said order which is under challenge in the present revision petition. 7. This Court is of the specific opinion that the grounds as recorded by the Court below for rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC are totally in consonance with law. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board and Ors.; AIR 2018 SC 4077 , a person who is recognised as a member of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in his original State, will be entitled to all the benefits of reservation under the Constitution in that State only and not in other States/Union Territories and not entitled to the benefits of reservation in the migrated State/Union Territories. 8. In view of the above ratio, it is clear that the plaintiff, who alleged the defendant/elected candidate to be a person migrated from other State, did have a valid cause of action to challenge her election. As held by the Court below, the same was definitely a valid cause of action and the election petition was rightly maintainable on the said ground. As held by the Court below, the same was definitely a valid cause of action and the election petition was rightly maintainable on the said ground. So far as the factum of the defendant being a migrated person, belonging to the SC/ST category, entitled to contest the election etc. are concerned, as held by the Court below, could only be decided only after the evidence being led on the said issues. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned and the present revision petition is therefore, dismissed. 9. Stay petition stands disposed of.