PUNIT RAI Vs. DINESH CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the Patna High Court, dismissing the Election Petition No. 2 of 2000 preferred by the appellant, challenging the election of the respondent herein - Dinesh Chaudhary, the returned candidate to the Legislative Assembly.

(2.) The dispute relates to the election held in 204 Fatua Reserved Assembly Constituency (S.C.) in the State of Bihar, in the year 2000. The appellant, amongs others in the fray, was a candidate for the election as a nominee of Janata Dal (U). He belongs to Scheduled Caste. The respondent, Dinesh Chaudhary was a nominee of Janata Dal (R) claiming to be belonging to Pasi community which is one of the Scheduled Caste communities. It appeats that some objections were raised regarding the nomination of the respondent Dinesh Chaudhary on the ground that he does not belong to Scheduled Caste community; rather he is Kurmi by caste which falls in the category of Other Backward Classes. The caste certificate furnished by the respondent before the Returning Officer was also under cloud, in respect whereof, the Returning Officer entertained grave suspicion as a result of which she lodged an FIR on the basis of which a Criminal case has also been registered against the respondent. He was also arrested in connection with that case. However, the Returning Officer accepted the nomination paper of the respondent for contesting the aforesaid election. The election was held on 17-2-2000 and the result was ultimately declared on 26-2-2000 declaring respondent-Dinesh Chaudhary as elected, having polled 46850 votes whereas the petitioner-appellant had secured 39897 votes which was next to the highest polled in favour of the respondent.

(3.) As indicated above, the petitioner filed an election petition challenging the election of the respondent, amongst other, on the ground that he was not entitled to contest from a reserved constituency as a Scheduled Caste candidate since he is Kurmi by caste. In this light, the case of the petitioner was that the nomination paper of the respondent was wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer. More particularly, since the Returning Officer herself had initiated criminal proceedings by filing an FIR relating to the certificate furnished by the respondent, being a fabricated document. The definite case of the appellant is that the respondent is a resident of Surangpur of Jehanabad Assembly Constituency and he is the son of Bhagwan Singh who married to Jago Devi and both are Kurmi by Caste. Evidence has been led to indicate that Dinesh Chaudhary and his brother are also married in Kurmi families. The voters' list of Jehanabad Assembly Constituency was also summoned indicating the respondent as son of Bhagwan Singh and Jago Devi is shown to be Bhagwan Singh's wife. Dinesh Chaudhary and his brother have been shown to be two sons of Bhagwan Singh.