G. RAJKUMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COIMBATORE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner, he belongs to Hindu Pallar community, notified as a Scheduled Caste community. He contested the 2011 general election for Member of Legislative Assembly from Ottapidaram Assembly Constituency in Tirunelveli District, a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes. It is stated by the petitioner that the fifth respondent, belonging to Konda Reddy community, which comes under Backward Class, obtained Scheduled Caste community certificate, being Devendra Kula Vella community, on the basis of bogus documents. By virtue of the false community certificate so obtained, the fifth respondent contested the 2011 general election to the Legislative Assembly, along with the petitioner and the fifth respondent was returned successfully. Thus, this writ petition seeking a direction to the official respondents to enquire into the irregularities in grant of the aforestated community certificate to the fifth respondent.

(2.) The short point that arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to whether the community certificate issued in favour of the fifth respondent may be questioned by a third party, who was a political opponent, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Even assuming but without conceding that the fifth respondent obtained Scheduled Caste community certificate on furnishing bogus documents and got elected in the reserved constituency for Scheduled Castes, the petitioner has full opportunity to challenge the election in the election petition when he was admittedly a candidate in the fray. Needless to state that the issue in respect of community certificate on the ground that the fifth respondent has contested the election from a reserved category without having the valid community certificate or without belonging to the said community, is an important issue that may be agitated in the election petition itself on the ground that the acceptance of nomination of the fifth respondent on the basis of false certificate, was not proper.