Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(emphasis supplied)

4. This writ petition was contested by the appellant inter alia on the ground that the same was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Further, the writ petitioners were only voters and therefore, had no locus to challenge the election of the appellant as Adhyaksha, which was an indirect election. Rule 7 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Rules explicitly envisages that only a member of the Panchayat may challenge the validity of the election of Adhyaksha and Upa-Adhyaksha. It was also pointed out that the writ petition filed by the said respondents was a politically motivated petition and filed at the behest of unsuccessful candidates who could not prevent the appellant from getting elected as Adhyaksha. As regards the allegations in the writ petition that the appellant had made false declarations and filed incorrect affidavits, the appellant contended that the Income and Caste Certificate was issued in favour of the appellant by the competent authority after completing all the formalities and procedure. So long as the said certificate was valid and in force, issuance of writ of quo warranto was misplaced. For, there is legal presumption about the validity of the said certificate in terms of Rules 3-C of the Rules of 1992 framed under the 1990 Act. The said Rule makes it amply clear that the certificate would remain valid until it is cancelled by the jurisdictional Caste Verification Committee. The appellant also pointed out that the allegation made in the writ petition, regarding the false or incorrect income disclosure made by the appellant, was wrong and ill- founded. Such allegation was based on far-fetched logic and untenable assumptions. The affidavit dated 06.02.2016 submitted along with the nomination form filed for contesting elections from 13-Badanahatti Constituency was in reference to the factual position stated therein. Similarly, the affidavit filed by the appellant dated 26.04.2016 was also true, faithful and accurate as it disclosed facts in reference to the qualification required for contesting the election of Adhyaksha at the relevant time, in respect of post reserved for “B” Category (Women) Backward Caste. In other words, both the affidavits and the information disclosed therein were truthful, accurate and contextual, as noted in the respective affidavit. The appellant also asserted that the fact that the Income and Caste Certificate was issued within five days from the date of application for the said certificate or on the same date the affidavit dated 26th April, 2016 was filed before the Tahshildar, could not give rise to a presupposition, inference or assumption that the same was issued without necessary and proper enquiry. On the other hand, there is legal presumption that the same was valid, having been issued by the jurisdictional Tahshildar competent in that regard. The circumstances, of the time of issue of E-stamps at about 5:27 P.M. or the date of affidavit being 26.04.2016, cannot be a just basis to assume that the certificate was fraudulent, in the face of the statutory provision making it explicit that it would be valid until cancelled by the Caste Verification Committee. Thus, the circumstances relied upon by the writ petitioners were neither relevant nor sufficient to draw any inference on fact, much less legal inference, so as to conclude that the certificate was fraudulently issued. The fact that the appellant belongs to “Kapu Caste”, which is notified as B Category Backward Class; and the declaration regarding income made by the appellant, are issues which are intrinsically mixed with the issuance of the Income and Caste Certificate. It is not open to question the validity of the said certificate much less to entertain the prayer for issuance of a writ of quo warranto on the assumption that the said certificate was fraudulent because of some fortuitous circumstances. It was pointed out by the appellant that the writ of quo warranto is not an ordinary power to be exercised by the High Court and moreso, in the matter involving disputed questions of fact. The High Court may be justified in issuing such a writ only if it is indisputable that the elected public representative was ineligible or disqualified to contest the election or had incurred disqualification at a later point of time. In either case, such a person cannot justify holding on to the public post such as that of Adhyaksha. That situation will arise only if the Caste Verification Committee was to invalidate and cancel the Income and Caste Certificate issued in favour of the appellant and not otherwise. On these contentions, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

“44. The issue relating to the caste, whether the appellant belongs to Kapu caste or not is a disputed question of fact. It is true that there is no absolute bar under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to consider annulment of caste certificate de hors alternative statutory remedy available provided the disputed question of facts are not involved and the circumstances warrant invoking of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The judgments relied upon by the respondents on this point do not assist the respondents since the matter is already pending before the Caste Verification Committee, considering this prayer at this stage would be, entertaining the parallel proceedings which is not tenable. The determination of caste requires a full-fledged enquiry, as such the learned single judge directing the caste verification committee, to proceed with the matter cannot be found fault with. Confirming the order of the learned single Judge, we direct the Caste Verification Committee to proceed with the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made above. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. Caste Verification Committee shall decide the matter in an expedite manner.

21. The fact as to whether necessary procedure has been complied with or not will be one aspect of the enquiry before the Caste Verification Committee, apart from the core aspect of whether in fact the appellant fulfills the income and financial criteria. The mere fact that the caste certificate has been issued within a short span of five days albeit after following due procedure, can be no just basis to invalidate the certificate by the Caste Verification Committee. The said Committee will be obliged to record a clear finding of fact about the eligibility of the appellant in reference to her financial status and income, keeping in mind the purport of Clause (ii) of the Note to Notification dated 13th January, 1995. While considering that matter, the Committee will have to make an enquiry as to whether the appellant or her parent(s)/guardian(s) “is” an income tax assessee /wealth tax assessee on the date of issuance of the certificate. As regards this fact, Caste Verification Committee will have to examine the correctness and efficacy of the two affidavits in its proper perspective known to law. According to the appellant, there is no discrepancy in the disclosures made by her in the two declarations concerning her financial matters at the relevant time. The first affidavit dated 6th February, 2016, correctly discloses the fact that the appellant possessed PAN Card and was an income tax assessee, having paid income tax for the Financial Year 2013-14. The second affidavit dated 26th April, 2016 is also accurate and discloses the correct financial position wherein it is stated that the annual income of her family is Rs. Three lakh fifty thousand from all the sources; and neither she nor her husband are income tax and commercial tax payers in reference to the Financial Year (2015-16), for which the affidavit was sworn on 26th April, 2016. It is also contended by the appellant that Clause (ii) of the Note posits two aspects:- the first is that the incumbent or either of his/her parents/guardian should not be an income tax or wealth tax “assessee” at the relevant time. The expression used in this clause, “is” an income tax assessee/wealth tax assessee, pre supposes that it is in praesenti and for the relevant period. Secondly, the incumbent must necessarily fall within the expression “assessee” given in the concerned tax laws. That means only a person, by whom any tax or any other sum of money is payable under the Act for the concerned period and not otherwise. No material has been produced or is forthcoming that the appellant, or for that matter, her husband, had paid any tax or are liable to pay tax or a sum of money under the concerned tax legislation, for the relevant period i.e. Financial Year 2015-16. Absence of such evidence, the Income and Caste Certificate issued to the appellant cannot be invalidated. Furthermore, the income of her husband / spouse is not a relevant fact for issuance of the Income and Caste Certificate. For, Clause (ii) excludes benefit only if the incumbent or either of his/her parent/guardian is an income tax assessee or wealth tax assessee. This provision will have to be interpreted strictly, as in the case of provision for any other disqualification. The appellant also asserts that there is no discrepancy or for that matter suppression or non- disclosure of financial information in the declarations submitted by her. In any case, that would be a disputed question of fact and per se concerning the issue of validity of Income and Caste Certificate.

32. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others14, the question was in reference to the Caste Certificate which was invalidated after the verification done by the jurisdictional Scrutiny Committee. The observations in the said 14 (2017) 8 SCC 670 decision may be of some import, if the Caste Verification Committee was to invalidate the Caste Certificate issued to the appellant after due verification. As a matter of fact, the enquiry before the Caste Verification Committee ought to proceed in terms of the procedure prescribed by the Act of 1990 and Rules framed thereunder and including the dictum of this Court in, amongst others Madhuri Patil Vs. Commr., Tribal Development15.