Petitioner's writ petition challenging rejection of nomination as Panchayat Sachiv due to caste certificate cancellation was dismissed. Court noted lack of primary evidence in writ petition and directed him to approach Circle Officer with documentary evidence for fresh order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.7094 of 2011
RAM PRAVESH ROY .
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .
-----------
2/ 02/05/2011
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State as also for the State Election Commission.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.4.2011 by which his nomination for the post of Panchayat Sachiv, Panchayat Samiti, Area No.32, SaraiRanjan, Gram Panchayat Raj- Manikpur, DistrictSamastipur has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his caste certificate as Dhanuk has wrongly been cancelled on 4.4.2011. Insofar as the cancellation of the caste certificate is concerned, the Court finds that it was done after a show cause notice to him and consideration of his stand.
The petitioner himself so acknowledges in paragraph-10 that he had produced all materials in support of the claim that he belonged to the extremely backward class (Dhanuk). What were the materials produced by him do not find any mention in the writ petition and neither have they been annexed as annexures, the primary evidence in a writ petition.
The order of cancellation dated 4.4.2011 states that his father’s caste name in the Khatiyan had
2
been registered as Kurmi which was a backward class. There is no statement in the writ petition contrary to the same except to say that the consolidation proceedings had not still been finalized.
A person derives his caste from his father. If the petitioner is of the opinion that he has documentary evidence whether by way of Annexure-1 or otherwise that his father held proper certification of the Dhanuk caste, and which does not satisfy the Court that he had produced it before the Circle Officer before the impugned order dated 4.4.2011 was passed, if so advised, the petitioner may approach the Circle Officer
along with such documentary evidence when it is expected that the Circle Officer is so satisfied shall consider all relevant materials and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order.
The writ application stands disposed.
KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's nomination for the post of Panchayat Sachiv should be allowed despite the cancellation of his caste certificate.
Ram Pravesh Roy
The State of Bihar
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court