K. DEVANNA NAIK S/O LATE DULLAYYA NAIK Vs. S. PAKKIRAPPA S/O S. OBALAPPA, NOW ELECTED AS MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MISC . Cvl. No. 1360/2011 is filed by the 1st Respondent under Order VI Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for striking down the pleadings. Misc. Cvl. No. 1362/2011 is filed by the 1st Respondent under Order VII Rule 11(a) of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, praying for rejection of the election petition as the same does not disclose cause of action.

(2.) THE election petition is filed for the following reliefs:

(3.) SRI M.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the 1st Respondent submits that the averments made in paragraph -8 may not be sufficient to conclude that the allegations made against Respondent No. 1 therein are true and correct. According to him, the allegations made against Respondent No. 1 that Respondent No. 1 has given false declaration in Form -D claiming to be belonging to Hindu Walmiki caste which comes under Scheduled Tribe category cannot be accepted. The question as to whether the certificate relating to caste is illegally obtained for the purpose of contesting election or the question as to whether Respondent No. 1 belongs to Hindu Walmiki community or Boya community is purely a question of fact which has to be determined based on the material to be collected during the course of trial. Even the question as to whether Hindu Walmiki community is one of the community coming under Scheduled Tribe category or not is also the matter to be considered later during the course of trial. The averments made in paragraph -8 are very much necessary for consideration of the election petition, inasmuch as, it is the specific case of the Petitioner that the 1st Respondent does not belong to Scheduled Tribe category and consequently he is not entitled to contest the election from the constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. Hence, the averments made in paragraph -8 which contain material facts should remain.