VIKRAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The post of the Ward Councillor of Ward No. 67 of Patna Municipal Corporation was reserved for Extremely Backward Class (for short EBC) for the election held on 4/6/2017. The petitioner and Respondent No. 11 had contested the said election, both claiming to be belonging to EBC. The petitioner is indisputably Teli by caste. Respondent No. 11, on the other hand, claimed his status of EBC with his caste name 'Awadh Baniya'.

(2.) It is the petitioner's case that Respondent No. 11 does not belong to the caste Awadh Bania rather he is Kalwar Bania by caste which does not fall within the EBC category. The only dispute, which the petitioner has raised in this writ application, is as to whether Respondent No. 11 is Awadh Bania or not. The State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Bihar, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee'), upon determination of the caste status of Respondent No. 11, has concluded that he belongs to the caste Awadh Bania which comes under EBC (Schedule-1). The said decision of the Committee dtd. 16/3/2020 is under challenge in the present writ application. The petitioner is seeking a consequential declaration from this Court to the effect that Respondent No. 11, being ineligible for the post because of his caste status and the petitioner having secured second highest votes in the said election, stood validly elected for the post of Ward Councillor.

(3.) Upon perusal of the pleadings and copies of the documents brought on record and rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties the Court is called upon to consider and decide whether the impugned finding and decision of the Committee need interference by this Court in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, whether the nature of consequential relief, which the petitioner is seeking, can be granted by this Court in a writ proceeding.