LALLOO SINGH Vs. KM GAYUR FATIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lallu Singh the appellant in this appeal was declared elected as Block Pramukh, Dungarpur Kuntarki, Moradabad on 8.3.2001. An election petition was filed by the 1st respondent Km. Gayur Fatima challenging the election on the ground that her nomination paper was illegally rejected by the Assistant Returning Officer. It is not in dispute that the seat was reserved for a backward caste candidate. The petitioner claims to be Jhojha by caste. The Assistant Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of the 1st respondent Km. Gayur Fatima on the ground that she did not belong to the Jhojha caste. The election petition filed by the 1st respondent has been allowed by the impugned order dated 21.10.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Moradabad. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by Lallu Singh, the returned candidate.

(2.) The case of the 1st respondent is that she is a resident of Dingapur, Tahsil Bilari but she also has an ancestral house in Mohalla Kanth Ka Darwaja, Deewan Ka Bazar, Moradabad City and she temporarily resides in his house too. The petitioner had applied for a caste certificate to the Tehsildar Bilari But it was refused whereupon a writ petition was filed by her in which an interim order dated 2.3.2001 was passed by which she was permitted to file her nomination paper and to contest the election subject to the result of the writ petition. The copy of this interim order and the copy of the order dated 9.8.2001 in that writ petition imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,000.00 upon the Assistant Returning Officer Rajendra Prasad Saxena for rejecting the nomination of the respondent No. 1 despite the interim order of the High Court were filed. The other papers filed by the 1st respondent included a caste certified issued by the Tehsildar Moradabed certifying her to be the Jhojha by caste, a certificate by the Block Development Officer, Dungarpur Kuntarki certifying Smt. Gayur Fatima's brother as of Jhojha caste and Bar Garana 1994-95 showing the respondent No. 1 as jhojha. The record of the file pertaining to the nominations papers for the election was summoned by the Tribunal from the office of the Assistant Returning Officer. The copies of the papers relating to nomination and its rejection have been filed alongwith the stay application and counter affidavit and counsel for the parties relied upon them in the course of their arguments in this appeal. The appellant Lallu Singh the returned candidate filed the copy of the order of the High Court dated 20.12.2001 in the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent by which the High Court has quashed the order dated 29.1.2001 of the Tehsildar & lari refusing to issue caste certificate to the 1st respondent and directed the Tehsildar to consider the case afresh and to pass speaking order. The copy of the order of the Tehsildar Bilari passed in compliance of this direction rejecting application of the 1st respondent for issuance of a caste certificate showing her as of Jhojha caste and holding that she belongs to Turk caste (Islam) was also filed. The election Tribunal framed various issues. Issue No. 1 is on the point whether the election petitioner is of Jhojha caste while issue No. 2 is on the point whether her nomination paper was illegally rejected. The election Tribunal decided both these issues in favour of the 1st respondent. On issue No. 2 the Tribunal relied upon the order of the High Court dated 3.2.2001 and held that the Assistant Returning Officer illegally rejected the nomination paper of the 1st respondent in breach of the direction given by the High Court.

(3.) I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Sri D.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain relied upon Rule 11 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat Election of Praniukh and up Pramukh and Settlement of Election Disputes Rules, 1994 and submitted that under sub-rule (2) thereof the Returning Officer is required to examine the nomination paper and decide all objections thereto and may either on such objection or on his own motion after such summary enquiry as he thinks necessary reject any nomination on any of the grounds given in Clauses (a) to (g) of the sub-rule. Clause (g) is quoted below: