K. DEVANNA NAIK Vs. S. PAKKIRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS election petition is filed under Section 81 of Representation of People Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the one of the contestants, who has lost in the election from '#6-Raichur (ST) Parliamentary Constituency' conducted in April/May 2009. The petitioner has sought for declaration that the election of the first respondent in '#6-Raichur(ST) Parliamentary Constituency is invalid and illegal; that he be declared as an elected candidate in the said election. Petitioner has also sought for setting aside the order passed by the Election Officer (earlier, the Election Officer was arrayed as respondent No.9. However, he is permitted to be deleted from the causetitle by the order dated 12.7.2011) under Section 100(1)(i) of the Act, relating to acceptance of nomination of respondent No.1.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that he belongs to 'Naik' Caste, which is declared as Schedule Tribe under Article 342 of Constitution of India. Respondent No.1 claims that he belongs to 'Hindu Valmiki' Caste as evident from Form D submitted by respondent No.1 prior to contesting the election. Respondent No.2 and Sri Raja Amareshwar Naik (earlier, Sri Raja Amareshwar Naik was arrayed as respondent No.8. However, he is permitted to be deleted from the causetitle by the order dated 12.7.2011) though claim that they also belong to 'Nayaka' Caste, they do not actually belong to 'Nayaka' Caste; so also respondents

(3.) THE written statement is also filed by the second respondent to the election petition and the summary of the same is as under:- The averment made in the election petition that the second respondent does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and that he gave false declaration and consequently his nomination is not in accordance with law, is improper and incorrect; that the Returning Officer has judiciously conducted the enquiry at the time of acceptance of nomination and sought the report of the Tahsildar and thereafter he has come to the definite conclusion that the certificate obtained by the second respondent that he belongs to Nayaka (valmiki) caste which is categorized as Scheduled Tribe is valid. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the Returning Officer has passed an order without considering his grievance; the second respondent has studied up to SSLC in Daffodeal High School, situated at No.763, Himyat Nagar Street, Hyderabad. Nayaka caste is categorized as Scheduled Tribe in terms of the notification issued by the President of India under Article 342 of Constitution of India. The State of Karnataka in its order dated 1.4.1982 has included Nayaka, Naik, Palegar, Valmiki as backward Tribes taking into consideration of the social status of Nayaka (Valmiki). Subsequently, after noticing the synonyms of the other sub-sects of Kshatriya which is a parent caste identified from time immemorial, viz., beda, boya, naika, talwar, valmiki as Scheduled Tribe on the basis of the report of the Backward Class Commissioner and thereafter the State obtained the assent of the President of India as contemplated under Article 342 of the Constitution of India for incorporating Nayaka (valmiki) Caste as Scheduled Tribe which is a sub-sect of Kshatriya as indicated in the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner. The second respondent has contested the election for Surpur Assembly segment in the General Election during 1994 producing the certificate that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe; the second respondent contested from Assembly Constituency of Surpur by producing the certificate that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe subsequently also. In the same way he contested the General Election held in the month May 2008 from Surpur Assembly Constituency by producing such certificate that he belongs to Nayaka community which is a Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter during 2009, the second respondent has contested for the post of MLA of Surpur Constituency which is reserved for Schedule Tribe based on such certificate of Schedule Tribe. The Returning Officer of Raichur Parliamentary Constituency after having received the objection statement filed by the petitioner during the course of scrutiny got the matter verified. The Assistant Returning Officer has conducted a local enquiry and reported to the Deputy Commissioner stating that the second respondent and his ancestors are Kshyatriyas and accordingly the certificate produced by the competent authority is valid. The nomination of the second respondent was accepted by the Returning Officer after considering the grievances pointed out by the petitioner on the basis of the reports and local enquiry. He further submits that the petitioner's request that he be declared as elected candidate as he has secured highest votes, ignoring the votes secured by respondents 1 and 2 is untenable. The second respondent is a candidate who has secured highest number of votes than that of the petitioner and therefore he is eligible and entitled to get declared elected in the place of first respondent in case if the first respondent's election is set aside. On these among other grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the election petition.