PARS RAM Vs. SH SHIV CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and respondents 1 to 7 contested the elections held in February 1987 from the Lambi Assembly Constituency (Reserved Seat) in the District of ferozepore. Respondent No. 1 secured 11,982 votes and was declared to have been elected. It is wholly unnecessary to set out in their entirety the pleas taken in the election petition because at the stage of arguments the controversy was confined to the narrow question whether the nomination papers of respondent No. 8 Kishan Lal were refected by the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny in accordance with law. Mr. Nand Lal Dhingra for the petitioner made a statement at the Bar that he did not propose to press the allegations relating to corrupt practices which had been made in the petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, respondent No 8, Kishan Lal, is a Hindu and is a chaman by caste As such he belongs to Scheduled Castes within the meaning of paragraph 2 read with Part X of the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled castes) Order. 1950 (to be referred to as 'the Order') issued under Article 341 of the Constitution. Kishan Lal respondent had filed a declaration under Section 33 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act')stating his caste to be "chamar" which is mentioned in Part X (Punjab) of the schedule to the Order where at item No. 9 the following castes are mentioned:-

(3.) ALTHOUGH all the respondent's were duly served, only the returned candidate respondent No 1. and Kishan Lal. respondent No 8, filed written statements and participated in the proceedings According to respondent No. 1, Kishan Lal. respondent No 8. is a Hindu but he is not a Chamar by caste It was denied that he belonged to the Scheduled Castes within the meaning of the Order In paragraph 4 (i) (a) of the written statement, it was averted inter alia that after the promulgation of the Order in 1950 and the notification issued, respondent No. 8 and members of his family started changing their caste by describing themselves as Mochis and Chamars. Actually they do not belong to either of these two castes. The said respondent was trying to take full advantage of the fact that he was doing business in leather goods and quite often people called such leather merchants as Mochis. In any event, so it was pleaded, respondent No. 8 was not a chamar even if he could prove that he was a Mochi. It was denied that the returning Officer bad at first accepted the nomination papers and then proceeded to admit evidence and give his decision rejecting the nomination papers. Kishan lal, respondent No. 8, in his written statement, supported the allegations contained in the petition. It was asserted by him that he was a Chamar by caste and was doing the business of manufacturing and selling desi leather shoes. Furthermore, he claimed that there was absolutely no difference between a chamar and a Mochi and that the distinction was wholly artificial.