SMT. BABITA BALMIKI Vs. AMRIKA BAI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The following question has been referred for decision to the larger Bench:

(2.) The issue involved is whether Sec. 16 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (hereinafter called 'the Certification Act') bars the Election Tribunal constituted under Sec. 441 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act, 1956') from entertaining or deciding the issue whether an elected candidate belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or not.

(3.) The factual matrix, necessary for decision of this case is that Smt. Babita Balmiki (Petitioner herein) was elected as Councillor to the Municipal Corporation, Korba from Ward No. 7 in the elections held on 29.12.2014. This seat was reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman). Respondent No. 4 herein filed an election petition before the Tribunal constituted under Sec. 441 of the Act, 1956 and one of the points raised in this election petition is that the Petitioner herein does not belong to the Scheduled Caste category and has obtained a forged provisional caste certificate. The Petitioner herein filed an application before the Election Tribunal contending that the Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide whether the caste certificate issued to her was false or not and further contended that this issue be referred for determination to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter called 'the Committee') constituted under the Certification Act. This application was rejected by the Election Tribunal holding that it was empowered to decide the issue. The Petitioner filed the present civil revision and reliance was placed by her on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court delivered in Rajkumari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (2008 (2) CGLJ 45) wherein the learned Single Judge has held that this matter could be decided only by the Committee. The correctness of this judgment has been doubted in the reference order and since the learned Single Judge could not persuade himself to agree with the earlier judgment, he has referred the aforesaid question for adjudication by the Division Bench.