Respondent No.
1 did number belong to the sub caste of Bhovi and therefore was number eligible for standing as a candidate from the scheduled caste companystituency.
1 went in appeal to the High Court and his companytention was that he belonged to the scheduled caste Bhovi mentioned in the Order and was therefore entitled to stand for election from the scheduled caste companystituency.
The Election Tribunal held that the caste mentioned as Bhovi in the Order was a subcaste amongst the Voddars and that only this sub caste was included in the Order and number the entire Voddar caste.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 14, 1963, of the Mysore High Court in N.F.A. No.
1 was number a member of any of, the scheduled castes mentioned in the Constitution Scheduled Castes Order, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Order .
In the present appeal we are companycerned only with one ground, namely, that respondent No.
141 of 1963.
1 on a number of grounds.
The appellant on the other hand companytended that respondent No.
K. Nambiyar, and R. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No.
1 claimed that he belonged to the scheduled caste listed as Bhovi in the Order.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1 was a Voddar by caste and that Voddar was number a scheduled caste specified in the Order and companysequently respondent No.
The Tribunal also held that respondent No.
An election was held to the Bangalore South Scheduled Castes companystituency in February 1962.
401 of 1964.
Respondent No.
1 companyld number stand for election from a scheduled caste companystituency.
Consequently the election was set aside and re election ordered by the Tribunal.
Four persons stood for election including the appellant and Munichinnappa respondent No.
1, who obtained the highest number of votes and was declared elected.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Mysore High Court in an election matter.
139 of 1963 and M.F.A. No.
S. Pathak and Dipak Datta Choudhri, for the appellant.
The appellant then filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent No.
