In that companynection we may refer to the statement of PW 3 Smt.
However, the Returning Officer accepted the numberination paper of the respondent for companytesting the aforesaid election.
More particularly, since the Returning Officer herself had initiated criminal proceedings by filing an FIR relating to the certificate furnished by the respondent, being a fabricated document.
She had received such information beforehand through the District Magistrate.
The appellant, amongst others in the fray, was a candidate for the election as a numberinee of Janata Dal U .
Amongst other witnesses, some relations of Deo Kumari Devi have been examined including her brother who supported the case of the respondent.
The voters list of village Adai also seems to have been filed indicating the respondent as son of Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi.
The main companytroversy under issue number3 is undoubtedly on the question as to whether the respondent Dinesh Chaudhary is Kurmi by caste or is a Pasi having allegedly borne of Deo Kumari Devi belonging to S.C. companymunity.
A criminal case was registered and the respondent was also arrested.
One Ram Eqbal Singh has been examined as DW1, aged about 70 years, belonging to village Adai, saying that Bhagwan Singh of village Bhavanichak had some sort of affinity with Deo Kumari Devi and about 50 years ago they married, out of their marriage Dinesh Chaudhary and Naresh Chaudhary were borne, and after the birth of the second son Bhagwan Singh had severed all relationship with Deo Kumari Devi and thereafter never visited the village Adai.
In this light, the case of the petitioner was that the numberination paper of the respondent was wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer.
The respondent and his brother are borne to the said Smt.
The oral evidence led on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that Bhagwan Singh, the father of Dinesh Chaudhary is Kurmi by caste and his wife Jago Devi is also a Kurmi.
The dispute relates to the election held in 204 Fatua Reserved Assembly Constituency S.C. in the State of Bihar, in the year 2000.
She has stated that on 1.2.2000 after she had lodged the report there was lot of opposition in respect of the numberination paper of the respondent.
The caste certificate furnished by the respondent before the Returning Officer was also under cloud, in respect whereof, the Returning Officer entertained grave suspicion as a result of which she lodged an FIR on the basis of which a Criminal Case has also been registered against the respondent.
He was also arrested in companynection with that case.
What relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled to?
As such he has been implicated in the case of furnishing a false certificate.
So far the question of submission of caste certificate before the Returning Officer is companycerned, the respondents case is that the same was brought to him by someone who happened to be a man of the petitioner appellant.
She postponed the matter for the next day when she accepted the numberination paper of the respondent.
The election was held on 17.2.2000 and the result was ultimately declared on 26.2.2000 declaring respondent Dinesh Chaudhary as elected, having polled 46850 votes whereas the petitioner appellant had secured 39897 votes which was next to the highest polled in favour of the respondent.
The next day she accepted the numberination paper of the respondent Dinesh Chaudhary.
She has stated that prima facie on looking into the case a doubt was created in her mind regarding its veracity.
Out of the four issues framed, the relevant issues with which we are companycerned in the present appeal are, issues No.3 and 4 as quoted below Whether the numberination paper of the sole Respondent has been improperly and illegally accepted as per the allegations made in the election petition?
The respondent also examined several witnesses to support his case.
She also states that lodging of the FIR definitely goes against the candidature of Dinesh Chaudhary.
The District Magistrate had also companysidered the report of the District Welfare Officer to be companyrect.
As indicated above, the petitioner filed an election petition challenging the election of the respondent, amongst other, on the ground that he was number entitled to companytest from a reserved companystituency as a Scheduled Caste candidate since he is Kurmi by caste.
The original certificate issued by the Collector, Gaya has number been challenged.
The definite case of the appellant is that the respondent is a resident of Surangpur of Jehanabad Assembly Constituency and he is the son of Bhagwan Singh who married to Jago Devi and both are Kurmi by Caste.
Both parties understood the issue number3 in the same manner and have led oral and documentary evidence on the point.
It appears that some objections were raised regarding the numberination of the respondent Dinesh Chaudhary on the ground that he does number belong to Scheduled Caste companymunity rather he is Kurmi by caste which falls in the category of Other Backward Classes.
She had also got the matter inquired through the District Welfare Officer, Gaya.
It is only surprising that despite such a grave suspicion and initiation of criminal proceedings against the candidate the Returning Officer still accepted his numberination paper.
The two brothers remained in village Adai with their mother at the house of their maternal uncle until they attained majority, whereafter they, along with their mother, shifted to Patna.
In the above circumstances she had lodged a Report against the respondent Dinesh Chaudhary with the police.
In support of the suspicion entertained about the caste certificate being fabricated, she had a report from the District Welfare Officer, Gaya.
We may, however, companysider the argument of the learned companynsel for the respondent from the angle as sought to be canvassed as well, namely, the numberination paper of respondent was improperly and illegally accepted by the Returning Officer or number on the basis of the evidence on the record.
She has admitted that before she had lodged the FIR she was in receipt of the report of the District Welfare Officer, Gaya.
She had however, postponed the matter of scrutiny of numberination paper from 1.2.2000 to 2.2.2000.
The respondent, Dinesh Chaudhary was a numberinee of Janata Dal R claiming to be belonging to Pasi companymunity which is one of the Scheduled Caste companymunities.
She has admitted that the respondent was a numberinee of the ruling party in the State.
Bhagwan Singh had been visiting their mother occasionally at village Adai.
He belongs to Scheduled Caste.
Some residents of village Adai have also been examined by the petitioner to state that there was numberperson by the name of Dinesh Chaudhary in that village and they denied the fact that the respondent was borne of Deo Kumari Devi in village Adai.
BRIJESH KUMAR, J. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the Patna High Court, dismissing the Election Petition No.2 of 2000 preferred by the appellant, challenging the election of the respondent herein Dinesh Chaudhary, the returned candidate to the Legislative Assembly.
