LACHHO DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole petitioner before this court was elected as Ward Councillor from Ward No. 3 of the Gaya Municipal Corporation in the recently held elections. The seat of Councillor from Ward No. 3 was reserved for a Scheduled Castes candidate and the petitioner contested the election as a member of the Scheduled Castes on the basis of a certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Town Gaya. Co -incidently the elected post of Mayor of Gaya Municipal Corporation is also reserved for a lady from the Scheduled Castes. The petitioner was an aspirant for the post and was intending to contest the election. Her only possible rival was Aasha Devi (later impleaded in this case as respondent no. 9) who was the only other lady Scheduled Caste Councilor in the Corporation. However, before the election of Mayor, a complaint was received that the petitioner did not belong to the Scheduled Castes and even the election of Ward Councillor was contested by her on the basis of a false certificate. The District Magistrate then made enquiry in Which it transpired that the father of the petitioner, Mahesh Ram was by caste Kahar which is not a Scheduled Castes but one of the most backward castes; that she was first married to a certain Birendra Prasad who too was by caste Kahar. Later on, she left him and married one Sukar Paswan who undoubtedly is a member of the Scheduled Castes. But by marrying Sukar Paswan the petitioner cannot acquire his caste. It was further found that there were two certificates declaring hears belonging to the Scheduled .Castes. One certificate under memo no. 783,9, dated 27.12.2001 was purported to have been issued by the Block Development Officer, Town, Gaya but on verification it came to light that it was a fake and it was not issued from the office of the Block Development Officer. In fact under memo no. 7839, dated 27.12.2001 a certificate was issued to one Arvind Kumar who was by caste Kahar. The other certificate which the petitioner had used for filing her nomination was issued under memo no. 844, dated 14.2.2002 and in view of the facts coming to light this certificate too was obviously false and steps were, therefore, taken for its cancellation.

(2.) THE District Magistrate reported the matter to the Election Commission and on a consideration of the entire material facts and circumstances the Election Commission by letter no. 2530, dated 2.9.2002 (Annexure -5) advised and directed the District Magistrate to take steps not only for the cancellation of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner but for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the person(s) responsible for giving her the false certificate. It was further directed that as the petitioner did not belong to the scheduled castes she could not hold the office of Mayor reserved for lady from the scheduled castes and she could not be allowed to take part in the election of the Mayor. The Election Commission also advised the District Magistrate to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, for nullifying her election as Ward Councillor from Ward No. 3 of the Corporation. This writ petition was filed challenging the instructions and directions contained in the letter of the Election Commission, dated 2.9.2002. But during the pendency of this writ petition the only other candidate Aasha Devi was elected unopposed as Mayor of the Corporation and then the petitioner filed an amendment petition for getting her impleaded as respondent no. 9 and challenging her election.

(3.) THIS matter was heard on more than one date with Mr. S.S. Asghar Hussain, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwary, JC to G.P. 9 representing the State; Mr. K. B. Nath appeared for the Commission and Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah for the intervenor respondent.