YOGENDRA KUMAR @ YOGENDRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned Advocate for Private Respondent No. 7, Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned Advocate for the State Election Commission and Ms. Deepanjali Gupa (AC to GP10) for the State. The sole issue in this writ petition is whether the State Election Commissioner had the authority to pass an order which has been impugned in the present writ petition, with respect to a disputed question of fact regarding the specific caste of the petitioner, by virtue of which, he contested the election and was returned successful.

(2.) The short facts which would be necessary for deciding this writ petition is that prior to the elections, which were held in the year 2016, a complaint was lodged by the Private Respondent No. 7 before the Circle Officer, Hulasganj with respect to the falsity of the claim of the petitioner being of "Pasi" caste. The Circle Officer gave a report that in the records of the circle, there was no document available to conclusively decide about the caste of the petitioner. Nonetheless, in the past, the petitioner was found to have taken advantage of the concessions doled out by the State for most backward caste category. By taking reference to a directive issued by the State Government with respect to the modus of deciding such dispute which inter alia suggested that the first preference has to be given to the records available and in the absence of such records, the spot verification about the caste of a particular person is required to be made. Taking this directive to its logical conclusion, the Circle Officer came to the finding that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and the petitioner having been found to have worked as a domestic servant in the house of one Gopal Sharma and that there was an unregistered deed of gift of the year 1999, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was of "Pasi" caste.

(3.) The matter rested there till the elections were held and the petitioner was declared successful.