Patna High Court - Orders
Bibi Sabnam @ Sabnam Khatoon vs The Stat Election Commission & Ors on 19 January, 2015
Author: Samarendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Samarendra Pratap Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1657 of 2014
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21579 of 2012
======================================================
Bibi Sabnam @ Sabnam Khatoon, wife of Md. Khalid, Resident of Village-
Hayatpur, P.O. & P.S.- Araria, District- Araria, presently Mukhiya of Gram
Panchayat Raj, Hayatpur, Block- Araria, District- Araria.
.... .... Appellant.
Versus
1. The State Election Commission (Panchayat), 3rd Floor, Sone Bhawan,
Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna through the State Election Commissioner.
2. The State Election Commissioner, State Election Commission
(Panchayat), 3rd Floor, Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.
3. The Secretary, State Election Commission (Panchayat), 3rd Floor, Sone
Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate -cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat),
Araria, District- Araria.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria, District- Araria.
6. The Circle Officer, Araria, District- Araria.
7. The Circle Officer, Raniganj, District- Araria.
8. Syar Alam, son of Late Md. Yasin, Resident of Village - Hayatpur,
Tola- Chakardah, P.O. & P.S.- Araria, District- Araria.
.... .... Respondents- Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chandan
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ga11- Partha Sarthy
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
AND
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP
SINGH
C.A.V. ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP
SINGH)
4 19-01-2015The present appeal is filed against the order, dated 12.11.2014, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 21579 of 2012, whereby a learned single Judge of this Court has declined to interfere with the order, dated 24.09.2012, passed by the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Araria, cancelling the caste certificate of the writ petitioner-appellant by which she was declared to be belonging to "Miryasin" community, which falls under 2 Patna High Court LPA No.1657 of 2014 (4) dt. 19-01-2015 2/5 Extremely Backward Class category. The writ petitioner- appellant was also aggrieved by the order of Collector treating her as a member of "Sheikh" community.
2. Before we examine the rival submissions of the parties, it would be necessary to notice the facts of the case in brief:
The writ petitioner-appellant submitted nomination paper for being elected to the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Hayatpur, within Araria Block, in the district of Araria, as a candidate of Extremely Backward Caste category, as the post/office of Mukhiya was reserved for Extremely Backward Caste category. After the writ petitioner-appellant came to be elected as Mukhiya of the said Panchayat, the result of her election was challenged alleging that she was "Sheikh" by caste, which does not belong to Extremely Backward Class category. On the other hand, the Writ petitioner-appellant claimed that she was "Miryasin" by caste, which is a caste under Extremely Backward Class category. The State Election Commission called for a report from the District Magistrate, Araria, who, vide order, dated 24.09.2012, cancelled the earlier caste certificate granted by the Circle Officer declaring the writ petitioner-appellant to be belonging to "Miryasin" community, which falls under Extremely Backward Class category. On the basis of the 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1657 of 2014 (4) dt. 19-01-2015 3/5 revenue records and other materials, the Collector, Araria, held that the writ petitioner-appellant is "Sheikh" by caste and not of "Miryasin" community/caste and, hence, the Collector, Araria, vide his order, dated 24.09.2012, cancelled caste certificate of the writ petitioner-appellant granted by the Circle Officer, whereby she had been declared to be belonging to Extremely Backward Class category as a member of "Miryasin" community.
3. The writ petitioner-appellant challenged the order, dated 24.09.2012, in C.W.J.C. No. 21579 of 2012. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition with an observation that the petitioner may approach the competent Civil Court to rebut the presumption raised against her in the Khatiyan that she is the grand daughter of Sheikh Samidur Rahman, who did not belong to "Miryasin" caste. The order of the learned single Judge is under challenge in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions in respect of her claim, namely, that the brothers of the appellant were also granted caste certificate of being "Miryasin" vide certificate, dated 11.07.1995, and 05.07.1997. Further-more, the father of the appellant was issued caste certificate belonging to "Miryasin" caste. In the gift deed, dated 25.01.2007, the father of the writ petitioner-appellant described himself as 4 Patna High Court LPA No.1657 of 2014 (4) dt. 19-01-2015 4/5 "Miryasin".
5. The grievance of the writ petitioner-
appellant in short is that the Collector, Araria, instead of relying upon the documents aforesaid, has based his opinion on the revenue records, wherein her grand father has been described as Sheikh Samidur Rahman.
6. Justifying the order of the Collector, learned counsel for the State submits that as the grand father of the writ petitioner-appellant was a "Sheikh", she would obviously be a "Sheikh" and, hence, the caste certificate granted in her favour describing her as a person belonging to "Miryasin" caste, has rightly been cancelled. He further submits that "Sheikh" caste does not fall under the Extremely Backward Class category.
7. The issue is: whether the appellant is "Miryasin" by caste or "Sheikh" and whether she ought to have been relegated to Civil Suit for decision on the issue.
8. The determination of caste is based on various factors, eg. entries in school register showing his/her father's caste, particularly, of pre-Constitution period. The caste of his/her parents at the time of birth; affinity to culture, tribe or caste, the anthropological and ethnological perspectives relevant for determining caste of the person etc. Such determination may require leading of evidence on behalf of both sides. In the instant case the 5 Patna High Court LPA No.1657 of 2014 (4) dt. 19-01-2015 5/5 Revenue record described her grand father as "Sheikh" and as per the record, a presumption can be inferred, subject to other relevant factors, that she was of "Sheikh" community. The learned Judge was right in observing that the writ petitioner's remedy lies in approaching the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
9. It would be equally open for the writ petitioner to challenge the Revenue entry itself by approaching the appropriate authority for its rectification, in accordance with law.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the order of the learned single Judge, dated 12.11.2014, is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)
I. A. Ansari, J: I agree.
(I. A. Ansari, J.)
Uday/-
U