DEVI DAS SINDHI Vs. JAGDISH VISHWAKARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 441-F of the Municipal Corporation Act (henceforth 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 30-6-98 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Murwara (Katni) (Election Tribunal) in Election Petition No. 64 of 1994.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the State Election Commission, Murwara (Katni) (henceforth 'the Commission') had issued a Notification for election of Municipal Corporation, Katni in the year 1994. According to the Notification issued by the Commission the Ward No. 41 at Katni was reserved for other backward classes. It was also not disputed before the Election Tribunal that the non-applicant No. 1 was a member of other backward class and for which a necessary proforma was issued by the competent authority on 20-4-94.

(3.) THE non-applicant No. 1 filed the said Election Petition No. 64 of 1994 before the Election Tribunal stating that sometime in the month of October, 1994 elections were to be held for Ward Members of the Wards of Municipal Corporation. The non-applicant No. 1 had filed a nomination paper for the purpose of his election from Ward No. 41, Katni, claiming himself to be a member of the other backward class. The applicant and the non-applicant No. 2 had also tiled their nomination papers. On 1-10-94, the Election Officer scrutinized the nomination papers. At the time of scrutiny, the non-applicant No. 1 filed his objection to the acceptance of nomination papers of the applicant. The objection of the non- applicant No. 1 was not accepted by the Election Officer. Subsequently, in the election, the applicant was declared to be elected for Ward No. 41, Murwara (Katni ). The claim of the non- applicant was based on the ground that the applicant was not a member of the backward class for which the Ward No. 41 was reserved. It is stated in the petition that the Ward No. 41, popularly known as Amar Shahid Hemu Kalani Ward', was reserved for backward classes, but the applicant could not have filed his nomination on the basis that he belonged to 'soni' caste. It was claimed that the applicant belonged to Sindhi community and the members of Sindhi community could not claim reservation on the basis that they belong to 'soni' caste which was one of the backward classes as per the Notification No. F-8-5-twenty five-84, issued by the State Government, on 26th December, 1994 (see M. P. L. T. /part-II, at page 73) under Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. The petition was mainly directed against the acceptance of the nomination of applicant and the rejection of the objection tiled by the non-applicant No. 1. It was also claimed that the State Government had issued direction to the Collectors to the effect that people belonging to Sindhi community could not be treated as members of the other backward class. It was further averred that the use of word 'soni' for denoting his caste by a party would not automatically make him a member of the other backward class. It was stated that certain persons of upper castes like 'gahoi Vaishya' also claim themselves to be belonging to 'soni' caste, but they cannot be treated as 'soni' belonging to other backward class. It is not necessary to mention any other allegation made in the Election Petition for the purpose of decision of this revision.