SIDDAPPA YELLAPPA Vs. ELECTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As one of the elected members from a reserved seat of Akkatangerhal Village Panchayat constituted and functioning under the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) tendered resignation, the election authority functioning under the said Act initiated necessary steps for filling up the said casual vacancy. On 23-4-1979 the election authority issued the calendar of events setting out several dates as set out hereunder : Receipt of nominations 24-4-1979 to 28-4-1979 Scrutiny of nominations - 1-5-1979 Withdrawal of nominations - 4-5-1979 Date of election - 28-5-1979 On or before the appointed date and time, the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and two others filed their nominations before the Returning Officer. On 1-5-1979, the Returning Officer scrutinised the aforesaid nomination papers and by separate orders of the same date rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner and two others and accepted the nomination papers of respondent No. 2 who had filed two nomination papers. With the rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioner and two others, respondent No. 2 alone was left in the field who did not withdraw his nomination papers on 4-5-1979. In that view, the Returning Officer being satisfied that respondent No. 2 was qualified to be chosen to fill the seat, made the necessary declaration on 4-5-1979 declaring that respondent No. 2 is duly elected to fill the casual vacancy as provided by the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat and Taluk Board Election Rules, 1959, In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, presented on 11-5-1979, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of his nomination paper and has sought for a mandamus direction to the Returning Officer to accept his nomination paper and hold elections to fill the seat in accordance with law.

(2.) In his nomination paper, the petitioner has stated that he belongs to Nayaka caste and was a member of the scheduled caste and therefore, entitled to contest from the seat reserved to scheduled caste scheduled tribe members. A similar declaration has been made by respondent No. 2 in his nomination paper. At the time of scrutiny, it appears, respondent No. 2 while producing a caste certificate issued by the Block Development Officer in his own favour also produced a transfer certificate issued by the Head Master, Government Kannada Boys School, Akkatangerhal, in which the caste of the petitioner is described as ' Hindu Berad'. His objection was that the petitioner was not a member of the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe and was therefore not entitled to contest for the reserved seat. Accepting the objections of respondent No. 2, the Returning Officer, being of the view that the peVitioner has not established his claim that he was a member of the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe by any documentary evidence, has rejected his nomination paper.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he is a member of the Berad caste or community and the same is called by different names as ' Nayaka, Valmiki, Balmiki etc. and that fact has been recognised by the Government itself in the several orders issued by it providing for reservation of posts and seats to members of scheduled caste/scheduled tribes in services and educational institutions. He therefore, urges that the rejection of his nomination paper insisting on the production of documentary evidence, which was not required and without ascertaining the different names by which the community of Berad is called, is illegal. He has also produced the transfer certificate issued by the Head Master, Government 'Kannada Boys' School, Akkatangerhal, in which the caste of respondent No. 2 is described as ' Hindu Berad ', as in his case (Exhibit C-1).