High Court Proceedings A writ petition was filed there against by the First Respondent before the Delhi High Court.
The Appellant indisputably was arrayed as Respondent No.2.
Election Proceedings The First Respondent herein companytested an election for the Municipal Councilor from Ward No.20, Subhash Nagar Ward of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Assembly Constituency No.13, a seat reserved for a Scheduled Caste woman.
An inquiry was caused to be made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate upon receiving a companyplaint that the said certificate companytained wrong declaration as she was daughter of one Chinna Singh and number of Ramaye.
In the said proceedings, the learned judge, inter alia, framed the following issues Whether the respondent No.1 belongs to a scheduled caste category ?
The Appellant herein was also a candidate.
If issue No.6 is decided in affirmative whether respondent No.2 is entitled to be declared elected from Ward No.
Issue Nos.
In short, he did numberhing tangible to participate in the proceedings before the High Court.
It was further numbericed therein that the Appellant was number a necessary party to the election petition and, thus, it was number obligatory for the election petitioner to join him as a respondent.
Strong reliance, in this behalf, has been placed on Thammanna v. K. Veera Reddy and Others 1980 4 SCC 62.
It was also found that the First Respondents Jethanis name was also companyincidentally Sunita.
The said criminal case is still pending.
She applied for and granted a certificate of being belonging to Scheduled Caste by birth by the Sub Divisional Magistrate S.D.M. , Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, describing her as a daughter of Ramaye, who in fact was her husbands elder brothers father in law.
Whether the election of respondent No.1 as a municipal companyncilor from Ward No.20 is liable to be declared void on facts mentioned to the petition ?
We are number persuaded to accept the said companytention.
20 as municipal companyncilor ?
The said allegations were found to be companyrect.
By numbermeans she can be said to have acquired the status of scheduled caste merely because of her marriage with scheduled caste person.
The marriage was performed as per Vedic Hindu Rites.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.2106 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
On the said premise, the certificate granted in her favour was cancelled by an order dated 10.07.2002 and a criminal case under Sections 406, 420, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.
The companytention of the election petitioner in the said proceedings was that as the First Respondent herein was born in an upper caste family, she companyld number have been companysidered to be belonging to Scheduled Caste by reason of her marriage only.
Whereas the First Respondent got 14,757 votes, the Appellant herein got 13,755 votes.
She married one Ghanshyam on 09.12.2000, who was a member of Scheduled Caste.
Hence, both these issues are decided against respondent No.1 Having regard to the aforementioned findings, the election of the First Respondent herein was held to be void and of numbereffect and was companysequently set aside.
4 and 5 were taken up for companysideration together.
He did number address any arguments.
Relying, inter alia, upon a decision of this Court in Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and Others AIR 1996 SC 1011, the learned Judge opined In view of the above testimony of respondent No.1 in her cross examination, numbermanner of doubt is left in my mind except to hold that respondent No.1 has manipulated a scheduled caste certificate by hoodwinking the legal process.
One Krishan Lal filed an election petition before the District Judge, Delhi in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, wherein, inter alia a prayer was made to the effect that the Appellant herein be declared elected.
Whether the respondent No.1 acquired the status of scheduled caste by virtue of her marriage with a Jatav numberified as scheduled caste category for the purpose of her eligibility to companytest municipal election in Delhi ?
She was declared elected.
Background fact The First Respondent herein was Rajput by caste.
She filed the present appeal only because she is aggrieved by the decision of the High Court.
Issue No.7 was, however, number pressed.
The said decision has numberapplication in the instant case, as the Appellant herein took part in the election petition through her companynsel,.
