ANDUGULA VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Elections to the Gram Panchayat of Varahapatnam, Kaikaluru Mandal, Krishna District, were conduced on 14-8-2001. The post of Sarpanch is reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman category. The petitioner contested for the post of Sarpanch along with the 4th respondent and was declared elected. Of the total 1693 votes poled, the petitioner obtained 806 and the 4th respondent 793 votes. Consequently the petitioner was declared elected as a Sarpanch with a margin of 13 votes. The petitioner obtained caste certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and on that basis the petitioner was considered as belonging to Scheduled Caste community and her nomination accepted and consequent on the result she was declared as elected. During the course of elections the . 4th respondent raised objections before the Election Officer regarding the validity of the nomination of the petitioner. The objections not having been accepted, after the elections the 4th respondent filed an election petition OP No.7 of 2001 before the Election Tribunal constituted under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the 1994 Act') read with The Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the 1995 Rules') issued in G.O.Ms.No.111, PR, RD and R (Elec.-III) Department, dt 3-3-1995. The Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, allowed the election petition filed by the 4th respondent on the sole ground that the petitioner belongs to Backward Caste and not to Scheduled Caste and consequently could not have been elected to a post of Sarpanch reserved for Scheduled Caste community. In coming to the said conclusion the Election Tribunal went in elaborate detail into various circumstances such as whether the petitioner's children were married according to Hindu rituals or Christian rituals; that the Mandal Revenue Officer issued the certificate to the petitioned to the effect that she belongs to Scheduled Caste, in a hurry; that the evidence discloses that the respondent (petitioner herein) used to attend prayers in the Church and the like circumstances, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence presented to it.

(2.) Assailing the order of the Election Tribunal dt 31-10-2002 in OP No.7/2001 this writ petition is filed. The principal ground urged by the petitioner to assail the reasoning and conclusions of the Election Tribunal is that the Election Tribunal had no manner of jurisdiction or authority to adjudicate upon the fact whether the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste, that the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, which is not pleaded, urged or demonstrated to be a forged one, is conclusive on the aspect as to the petitioner's status as a Scheduled Caste and that any challenge to the validity of such certificate could only be under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short 'the 1993 Act') and not before the Election Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the 1994 Act. In support of this contention reliance is placed by the petitioner on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in P. Aruna Devi v. Election Authority-cnm- Commissioner. Adoni Municipality and others.

(3.) In the aforesaid decision this court held that