HEM CHANDRA ARYA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT special appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 5.3.2013 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby WPMS 1809/2012 was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts, inter alia, of the present case are that elections for the Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand were notified in the month of January 2012; Legislative assembly seat of Nainital was reserved for the scheduled caste candidates. Petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 filed their respective nomination papers claiming themselves to be scheduled caste candidates. Nomination papers of the petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 were scrutinized, as required under Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, and were found to be in order and both of them along with other candidates were allowed to contest the elections from Nainital Seat of Legislative Assembly as scheduled caste candidates. It is important to mention herein that the petitioner never raised any objection at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers of the candidates that respondent no. 5 did not belong to scheduled caste community and, in fact, belonged to higher community, therefore, nomination papers submitted by respondent no. 5 were accepted. In the said elections, respondent no. 5 was declared winning candidate. Thereafter petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating that biological father of the respondent no. 5 was one Mr. Kuldeep Singh Anand, a Sikh gentleman belonging to higher caste, therefore, respondent no. 5, for all practical purposes, should be held belonging to higher caste, and merely because her mother was scheduled caste and she has married to schedule caste man, she should not be treated as scheduled caste candidate. It is stated in the writ petition that the fact that respondent no. 5 is the daughter of Kuldeep Singh Anand was not in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers, therefore, objections against her nomination could not be taken at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers.

(3.) IN the writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief: