ROSHANLAL MARAVI Vs. SHAMBHOO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bangawan (Shahdol) was reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate in 1999-2000 elections. The first respondent, claiming that he belongs to Gond community, contested the election and was declared elected as Sarpanch on 5-1-2000.

(2.) THE Naib Tehsildar, Kotma issued a letter dated 22-12-2000 requiring the first respondent to submit documents in proof of his caste on 23-12-2000. In pursuance of it, he produced a caste certificate dated 27-10-1997 issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Kotma showing that he belonged to 'gond' caste. In the meanwhile, it would appear that one Leeladhar Sharma (fourth respondent) filed a complaint that the first respondent did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe. After a preliminary enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anuppur (third respondent herein), issued a notice dated 23-2-2001 to first respondent alleging that his enquiry revealed that the first respondent belonged to Village Devnandpur, District Gajipur, Uttar Pradesh and he was not a member of Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, he could not have contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Bangawan Gram Panchayat, which was reserved for a Scheduled Tribe. The notice called upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from the post of Sarpanch. The first respondent gave his reply on 28-2-2001 stating that he belongs to 'gond' caste which is a Scheduled Tribe, that he had earlier also been elected as Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat in the year 1979-80 when the said Gram Panchayat had been reserved for Scheduled Tribes, and that again in the year 1993-94, he was elected as Member of Janapad Sabha from a scat reserved for Scheduled Tribe. He also reiterated that he was a resident of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order dated 2-3-2001 in exercise of power under Section 40 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 ('act' for short) removing him from the post of Sarpanch.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the first respondent filed W. P. No. 1196 of 2001. He contended that the facts alleged, even if true, would only become a ground for disqualification enabling the District Magistrate to initiate action under Section 36 (2) of the Act and did not entitle the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to exercise power of removal under Section 40 of the Act. He also contended that there was no ground to hold that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe. Accepting the contention, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 10-7-2002. He held that on the facts and circumstances, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate could not have initiated action under Section 40 of the Act and, therefore, his order dated 2-3-2001 was null and void. He, therefore, quashed the order dated 2-3-2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anuppur reserving, however, liberty to the competent authority to proceed against the first respondent, if so advised, in accordance with law.