RAJRANI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGELAWSUITDOWNLOAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the office report dated 9.7.2018 service of notice on respondent No. 2 was deemed to be sufficient vide order dated 23.8.2018 passed by this Court. However, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 to oppose the present petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the post of Gram Pradhan in Village-Kanwar Tehsil-Sirathu, District-Kaushambi was reserved for Scheduled Caste women. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 alongwith other candidates contested the aforesaid elections and the respondent No. 2 was declared elected. Election Petition No. 10/2015-16 was filed by the petitioner challenging the election of respondent No. 2 on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not a scheduled caste and was, therefore, not qualified to contest the election and be elected as Gram Pradhan of Village-Kanwar Tehsil-Sirathu, District-Kaushambi in the election held in 2015. It was stated in the election petition that the nomination papers of respondent No. 2 had been wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer, and therefore, the election of respondent No. 2 was liable to be set aside and the petitioner was entitled to be declared elected in the said election. In Election Petition No. 10/2015-16 issues regarding caste and consequential legality of the election of respondent No. 2 were framed and the said issues were decided against the petitioner on the ground that the caste certificate issued to respondent No. 2 by the competent authority signifying her to be a scheduled caste had not yet been cancelled and the proceedings to cancel the aforesaid caste certificate were still pending before the District Level Committee. Consequently, the Election Tribunal vide its order dated 9.11.2016 dismissed Election Petition No. 10/2015-16 filed by the petitioner. Against the judgement and order dated 9.11.2016 passed by the Election Tribunal, the petitioner filed a Revision under Sec. 12(C)(6) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1947') before the District Judge, Kaushambi, which was registered as Election Revision No. 15 of 2016. The aforesaid election revision, at present is pending in the court of Additional District Judge, court No. 2, Kaushambi (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.D.J.'). In the meantime, the District Level Committee vide its recommendation dated 8.11.2017 recommended that the caste certificate issued to respondent No. 2 signifying that she was a member of scheduled caste be cancelled and on the aforesaid recommendation of the District Level Committee, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Kaushami (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.D.M.') vide his order dated 10.11.2017 cancelled the caste certificate issued to respondent No. 2. Subsequently, in Revision No. 15 of 2016, the petitioner filed an application dated 15.11.2017 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Sec. 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.P.C.'), wherein he sought to bring on record the order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the A.D.M. so that the said order be considered while deciding Revision No. 15 of 2016. The aforesaid application was numbered as Paper 22Ga in the Revisional Court. The A.D.J., i.e., the Revisional Court vide its judgement and order dated 23.2.2018 dismissed Paper 22Ga on the ground that in its revisional jurisdiction, the Court was not empowered to take additional evidence as Order 41 Rule 27 read with Sec. 107 C.P.C. were not applicable in Revision and in the proceedings under the Act, 1947. The order dated 23.2.2018 passed by the A.D.J. has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgements of this Court in Mool Chandra Vs. Trilok Chandra, 2001 AIR(All) 160, Radha Govind Vs. Patel Bidi Works, 2008 72 AllLR 219, Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi Vs. Special Judge, 2010 81 AllLR 689, S. Nagavalli Vs. The Election Officer (Madras High Court) and unreported judgement dated 28.9.2010 delivered by this Court in Civil Revision No. 23 of 2010, Shekhar Bahuguna Vs. Suresh Chandra Kapoor as well as the judgement of Supreme Court in Lekh Raj Vs. Muni lal and Others, 2001 AIR(SC) 996 and has argued that in view of the law laid down in the said judgements the application filed by the petitioner was maintainable and the impugned order of the Revisional Court was contrary to law and liable to be set aside.