PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.10215 of 2014

(2.) The challenge to the order issued under Annexure P7 is contained on two grounds: (i) the petitioner's election could have been set aside only through an election petition and cannot be brought through a challenge to his caste status. The counsel would refer me to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus Surinder Singh Banolta that considered the case of an action under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises (Rent Recovery and Land Eviction) Act of 1971. It was a case of the respondent of election as a member of the Zila Parishad and it was found that the respondent had encroached upon the land of the authority prior to the election and hence, was not qualified to hold the elected post. Based on the fact that he had been ordered to be evicted under the Eviction Act, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the election by applying the disqualification provisions. This decision was found to be bad by the Supreme Court. I find no use for this authority to the fact of this case. There is no order which is brought before me that has set aside the election. The order impugned is only with reference to the caste status and whether a person shall be disqualified as an elected member on the basis of the order is still not an issue for consideration now. I will find the challenge to this certificate on that basis is not tenable.

(3.) As regards the claim that the certificate issued was not valid, the counsel points out to me that as per the notification issued by the Haryana Government under the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes, scrutiny of the caste certificate could be undertaken by the District Level or the State level by 5 persons and 3 would constitute the quorum. 5 persons mentioned under the notification are as follows:-