NOMAN MASOOD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid four writ petitions have been placed before us for the purposes of analogous hearing. Three writ petitions out of four writ petitions have been filed by one candidate for the Municipal Election, whose candidature was rejected due to his caste certificate. The fourth writ petition has been filed by an independent candidate, who had withdrawn his candidature in support of the petitioner herein who made the aforesaid writ petitions.

(2.) THE dispute is whether the petitioner belongs to the caste of Backward muslim community known as "sheikh Sarwari" or not ? In the Schedule of the relevant notification, we find that there is a "comma" in between the words sheikh and Sarwari as annexed to the writ petition. However, a clarification has been made by the Judgment of a learned Single Judge rendered in the case of shamiuddin v. Additional District Judge, Mathura and others, 1998 16 LCD 424, that Sheikh includes the word Sarwari. Such argument of Sri S. M. A. Kazmi learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner was not opposed by Sri Murlidhar learned senior Counsel opposing the writ petition. His contention is that it is to be proved that whether the petitioner belongs to backward class known as "sheikh Sarwari" or not ?

(3.) HOWEVER, the arguments were advanced by the parties. During course of such arguments, a further question arose with regard to authority of Tehsildar to pass the order impugned dated 30th June 2007. According to Mr. Murlidhar, the Tehsildar passed such order on the basis of the earlier order passed by a division Bench of this Court on 12. 3. 2007 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55051 of 2006 Noman Masood v. State of U. P. and others. Therefore, the Tehsildar upon being empowered by the order appreciate the fact, rejected the caste certificate and also rejected the application of the petitioner. We enquired about the power or authority of a Committee when Sri Kazmi cited a Judgment rendered in the case of Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1996 SC 1338, paragraphs 15 and 18 of such Judgment are quoted below: