MEERA KANWARIA Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . In this petition the Respondent No. 7's right to hold the office of a Councillor in the Delhi Municipal Corporation is challenged on the ground that she is disqualified to hold the same. Respondent No. 7 represents Ward No. 20, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi which is a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes. The petitioner, who also contested the election and who lost to Respondent No. 7, alleges that Respondent No. 7 does not belong to a Scheduled Caste and that even her Scheduled Caste Certificate has been canceled by the SDM, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. Accordingly, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of quo warranto to the respondents to show under what circumstances, the Respondent No. 7 continues to hold the post of councillor of ward No. 20, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi.

(2.) . Elections to the municipal Corporation of Delhi were held on 24.3.2002: The Petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 7, amongst others, contested the election from ward No. 20, Subhash Nagar, Delhi. This constituency was reserved for women and was also reserved for candidates belonging to the scheduled castes. The Petitioner received 13,755 votes whereas the Respondent No. 7 got 14,757 votes. Consequently, Respondent No. 7 was declared elected from the aforesaid constituency on 28.3.2002.

(3.) . The entire dispute in the present petition centres around the question as to whether the Respondent No. 7 belongs to a scheduled caste or not. It is obvious that if she does not belong to a scheduled caste then, she would be disqualified from representing the aforesaid constituency which is reserved for scheduled castes. To put things in a correct perspective, it would be pertinent to note that an election petition has also been filed by an elector of the said ward No. 20 under Section 15 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") challenging the election of the Respondent No. 7 on, inter alia, the ground that the Respondent No. 7 did not belong to a scheduled caste and therefore was not qualified for contesting the said election. The said election petition is entitled Shri Krishan Lal v. Ms. Sunita and Others, (Election Petition No. 13 of 2002) and is pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi. Issue numbers 4 and 5 in the said election petition specifically raise the question with regard to the status and qualification of the Respondent No. 7. The issues 4 and 5 read as under: