Dismissed

Khushboo Ara v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Dec 2023L.P.A/881/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal challenged the disqualification of an elected Mukhiya for contesting a reserved OBC seat. The Patna High Court upheld the State Election Commission's decision, affirming that the Caste Scrutiny Committee correctly relied on the appellant's grand-father's pre-independence land records (Khatian) showing 'Sheikh' caste to determine her unreserved status.

What did the court decide?

Both the Writ Petition and the Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed. The disqualification of the appellant by the State Election Commission was upheld.

Khushboo Ara Vs The State of Bihar — Election Law | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.881 of 2023 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5581 of 2023

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Khushboo Ara Daughter of Md. Quamruzzama Adil Resident of Ward No. 13, Madhaili Bazar, P.O. Madhaili Bazar, P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Araria, District- Araria.

¶10

The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Araria, District- Araria.

¶11

The Block Development Officer, Bhargama, District- Araria.

¶12

The Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Bhargama, District- Araria.

¶13

The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel, Patna, through the State Election Commissioner.

¶14

The State Election Commissioner, The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel, Patna.

¶15

The Secretary, The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel, Patna.

¶16

The Officer on Special Duty, The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel, Patna.

¶17

Rukhsana Praveen, Daughter of Md. Shahzahan Resident of VillageMajarahi, P.S. Bhargama, District- Araria.

¶18

... ... Respondent/s

¶19

======================================================

¶20

with

¶21

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 202 of 2022

¶22

======================================================

¶23

Khusboo Ara Daughter of Md. Quamruzzama Adil Resident of Ward No.-13, Madhaili Bazar, P.O.- Madhaili Bazar, P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura, presently Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Bishariya, Block- Bhargama, District- Madhepura.

¶24

... ... Petitioner/s

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶27

The Caste Scrutiny Committee Bihar through the Chairman-cum-Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶28

The Principal Secretary General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna-cum- Chairman, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Bihar.

¶29

The Deputy Secretary Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patnacum-Member, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Backward and Extremely

¶30

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 2/19

¶31

Backward Class.

¶32

The Joint Secretary General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna-cum- Member, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Bihar.

¶33

The District Magistrate Madhepura, District- Madhepura.

¶34

The District Magistrate Araria, District- Araria.

¶35

... ... Respondent/s

¶36

====================================================== Appearance : (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 881 of 2023) For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay (GA 5) For the State Election Commission: Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 202 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Nadeem Seraj (GP5) For the State Election Commission: Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate

¶37

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

¶38

Date : 19-12-2023

¶39

Heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned Advocate

¶40

for the appellant and the State and the State Election Commission.

¶41

L.P.A. No. 881 of 2023 and C.W.J.C. No.

¶42

202 of 2022 have been taken up together and are being

¶43

disposed off by this common judgment.

¶44

The L.P.A. is directed against the judgment

¶45

dated 27.06.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge

¶46

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 3/19

¶47

in C.W.J.C. No. 5581 of 2023, whereby the order passed by the State Election Commission (Panchayat), Patna dated 27.03.2023 has been upheld.

¶48

By the aforenoted order, the appellant stood disqualified for the reason of her not belonging to EBC category (Sheikhra) on which she was returned elected as Mukhiya of a particular Panchayat.

¶49

C.W.J.C. No. 202 of 2022 has been filed by

¶50

the appellant seeking quashing of the proceedings of State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, dated 25.11.2021, whereby the appellant was held to be a member of Sheikh and not Sheikhra Caste, and therefore, belonging to the unreserved category.

¶51

Brief facts would be necessary for deciding both, the appeal and the writ petition.

¶52

The appellant, on the basis of her claim as a person of Sheikhra Caste, one of the most backward categories, contested elections for the Post of Mukhiya in

¶53

the year 2016 from a Gram Panchayat, which was

¶54

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 4/19

¶55

reserved for Female EBC category. She was declared elected. The runners-up candidate (respondent No. 11) got a complaint registered vide Complaint No. 3 of 2017 with the State Election Commission that the appellant did not have the qualification for contesting election from

¶56

a Panchayat, which was reserved for female EBC contestants.

¶57

The aforenoted complaint was sent to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, constituted by the State Government under its GAD in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and

¶58

Anr. vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 241.

¶59

The Committee, in turn, referred the matter to the CID for submitting a report in connection with the

¶60

claim of the appellant that she belonged to Sheikhra Caste.

¶61

The CID vide its report dated 05.02.2018, confirmed that the appellant belonged to Sheikh Caste

¶62

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 5/19

¶63

and not Sheikhra as claimed by her.

¶64

With the aforenoted report of the CID, the

¶65

Caste Scrutiny Committee gave show-cause notice to the appellant which she had replied but the Committee came to a finding that the appellant belonged to Sheikh Caste (UR) and not Sheikhra.

¶66

The State Election Commission, however, did not give any weightage to such report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that the report was not based on any unimpeachable material.

¶67

The complainant, thereafter, challenged the aforesaid decision of the State Election Commission before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 5136 of 2020, which was allowed and the Commission was directed to pass a fresh order after taking into account the findings recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In fact, while remanding the matter before the State Election Commission, the High Court expressed surprise as to how the State Election Commission avoided relying on

¶68

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 6/19

¶69

the findings recorded by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee in the absence of any challenge to it by the appellant.

¶70

The High Court also noticed that the appellant suffered from an inherent lack of eligibility to contest the election and therefore, thought it fit to restrain her from functioning as Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat till a final order was passed by the State Election Commission, Patna. The District Magistrate-cum-District Panchayat Raj Officer, Araria was also directed to consider registering FIR against the appellant who had fraudulently portrayed herself as EBC (Female) candidate for contesting the election in question.

¶71

The Commission, thereafter, vide order dated 31.12.2020 declared the appellant to be disqualified on account of the findings recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

¶72

The findings of the Caste Scrutiny

¶73

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 7/19

¶74

Committee thereafter was challenged by the appellant afresh vide C.W.J.C. No. 2408 of 2021, which challenge

¶75

was sustained on the ground of Caste Scrutiny Committee having come to a finding on such cluster of documents which were never furnished to the appellant.

¶76

This time again, the High Court, after quashing the findings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, remanded it to the Committee to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after furnishing all the relevant materials/ documents/ evidence/ compact disc etc. to the appellant.

¶77

While this all was going on, 2021 elections were notified by the Commission. The appellant again could procure Sheikhra Caste certificate (08.09.2020) and contested the election for the Post of Mukhiya, Panchayat which still remained reserved for EBC (Female) category and was even declared successful.

¶78

Meanwhile, the appellant was noticed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee as directed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2408 of 2021 and after serving all

¶79

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 8/19

¶80

the documents which the Caste Scrutiny Committee would have relied upon, to the appellant, confirmed its

¶81

earlier decision that the appellant belonged to Sheikh and not Sheikhra Caste.

¶82

This decision of the Caste Scrutiny

¶83

Committee is under challenge, as noted above, in C.W.J.C. No. 202 of 2022 which has fallen for consideration before us.

¶84

The major ground of challenge in the

¶85

aforenoted writ petition is that such a decision has been arrived at by the Committee even in face of there being more than one document in support of the claim of the appellant that she is Sheikhra by Caste, which document includes the Caste certificate of her father, her husband (who is also the cousin of the appellant) as well as the

¶86

Caste certificates of a number of blood-relatives, school records, sale deeds, etc. The further ground of challenge is that the Committee relied heavily on few of the Khatians in the name of the grand-father of the

¶87

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 9/19

¶88

appellant in which the caste is recorded as Sheikh and not Sheikhra.

¶89

While again reiterating its finding that the appellant does not belong to the EBC category, the Committee took reference of Resolution No. 1567 dated 05.02.2014, that the primary document to rely upon in these matters would be the land records and only in the absence of such records, would spot verification and other documents be referred to. From the documents on record, the Committee, by a majority opinion, was of the view that for determining and certifying the Caste of a particular claimant, the Caste recorded in the Khatian of the ancestors of the claimant ought to be treated as the main document which could be relied upon.

¶90

Precisely for this reason, the Committee

¶91

again came to a finding that the appellant belonged to the unreserved category.

¶92

The challenge to the judgment, as noted above, is on the ground that such Khatian in the name

¶93

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 10/19

¶94

of the grand-father of the appellant is not a document of such unimpeachable character which could have formed

¶95

the basis for the Committee as also the State Election Commission to disqualify the appellant under 136(2) of

¶96

the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 .

¶97

The aforenoted writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 202 of 2022) was admitted by the High Court but no interim protection was granted to the appellant.

¶98

The State Election Commission, therefore,

¶99

proceeded against the appellant in view of the fresh report by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and got a case registered vide Case No. 43 of 2021 (Rukhsana

¶100

Praveen vs. Khushboo Ara) . In this complaint, the appellant was noticed and asked to furnish her showcause reply. An initial objection was raised by the appellant before the Commission that the C.W.J.C. No. 202 of 2022, directed against the decision of the Committee is pending adjudication before the Court and therefore, the Commission ought not to proceed further

¶101

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 11/19

¶102

in the matter. However, the Commission finally heard the matter and held the appellant to be disqualified but made it clear that the decision of the Commission would be subject to the final outcome of C.W.J.C. No. 202 of 2022.

¶103

The aforenoted decision of the Commission was challenged before the High Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 5581 of 2023, as noted above, in which it was held that the challenge is unmerited and the disqualification of the appellant is justified.

¶104

The present L.P.A. arises out of the aforenoted decision of the learned Single Judge.

¶105

A perusal of the judgment delivered by the Single Judge clearly reflects that the verdict of the Full Bench of Patna High Court in Rajni Kumari and Ors.

¶106

vs. The State Election Commission through its Secretary and Ors. 2019 (4) PLJR 673 has been gone into in detail. Finding justification for the Commission to take up the complaint of respondent No.

¶107

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 12/19

¶108

11 to be within the jurisdiction of the Commission, to be correct, the learned Single Judge held that the Commission has rightly gone by the report submitted by the fact finding body, viz., the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Caste Scrutiny Committee also had relied upon Khatiani documents to base its decision upon. Nothing at all was found by the learned Single Judge to justify any interference with the decision of the Commission, disqualifying the appellant.

¶109

Caste, especially, against a vacancy meant to be filled up by EBC (Female) category is the basic qualification and even pre-election, the appellant never possessed the necessary eligibility to contest the election. The only outcome of this is that the appellant is required to be disqualified, which decision was taken by the Commission, requiring no interference.

¶110

Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned Advocate for the appellant, however, laid great emphasis on the having relied upon “impeachable” and “not

¶111

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 13/19

¶112

unimpeachable” documents and giving undue weightage to the findings. He suggested to the Court to first consider the challenge put up by the appellant in C.W.J.C. No. 202 of 2022 and then decide the L.P.A.

¶113

It was argued by him that the appellant is the daughter of one Md. Quamruzzama Adil who was married to her cousin, viz., Naurej Alam in the year 2008. Even before she was elected as a Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat, she had been granted a Caste Certificate of Sheikhra Caste by the Circle Officer, Bhargama, way back in the year 2005. Similar certificate was granted to the father of the appellant. Some of the relatives of the appellant were granted such certificate of being members of Sheikhra Caste even before the certificate in her favour was issued.

¶114

From 1997-2015, most of the persons belonging to the family of the appellant are in possession of Caste certificate of Sheikhra Caste by different Circle Officers of Bhargama Block in the district of Araria.

¶115

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 14/19

¶116

Thus, the claim of the appellant is not recent but based on old documents. Additionally, it was argued that before the Returning Officer, no objection was raised about the Caste status of the appellant at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers. The complaint was filed by respondent No. 11 only after she lost to the appellant in the elections.

¶117

The refrain of the respondents is that in the event of a fact finding body having come to a definite conclusion that the appellant did not belong to EBC, there was no reason to interfere with such decision making. The Commission rightly based its decision on the report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

¶118

It appears from the records that though the father and husband and other relatives of the appellant possess a certificate of Sheikhra Caste but the Khatiani document in the name of the grand-father of the appellant records that he was of Sheikh Caste, which is an unreserved category.

¶119

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 15/19

¶120

On a careful reading of the documents, we

¶121

are of the considered opinion that for the Caste Scrutiny

¶122

Committee to rely upon the Khatiani document as the main document for determining the Caste of the appellant for the purposes of assessing her qualification to contest the elections, is correct and justified. So is the resolution of the General Administration Department with respect to the modus of assessment of the Caste.

¶123

The Khatiani document of the grand-father

¶124

of the appellant would come within the category of unimpeachable document and merely because some of the family members of the appellant including her father and husband have reaped advantage of being shown as EBC would not render a document of old antiquity to be impeachable or untrustworthy, at least for the purposes

¶125

of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Commission to take a decision about the Caste status of the appellant for her disqualification.

¶126

We, therefore, uphold the decision of the

¶127

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 16/19

¶128

Caste Scrutiny Committee, the State Election Commission and of the learned Single Judge.

¶129

While saying so, we have taken note of the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in Anand vs.

¶130

Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe

¶131

Claims and Ors. (2012) 1 SCC 113 , wherein it has been held in that context that the genuineness of a Caste claim has to be considered on a thorough examination of the documents and also on the affinity test, which would include the anthropological and ethnological traits etc. of an applicant. However, the Supreme Court admitted that it was neither feasible nor desirable to lay down any absolute rule which would be applied mechanically to examine a Caste claim. Having said that, the Supreme Court set a broad parameter, to

¶132

be kept in mind, while dealing with a Caste claim.

¶133

It was noted by the Supreme Court that while dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance ought to be placed on pre-independence

¶134

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 17/19

¶135

documents because they entail a higher degree of probative value regarding the declaration of status of a Caste, as compared to post-independence documents.

¶136

The reason for saying so, perhaps, is that only in the later years, the protective discrimination aspect would make it very profitable for an applicant to claim a reserved category status. The burden of proving the Caste claim is always upon an applicant, who has to produce all the requisite documents in support of his claim. The Caste Scrutiny Committee merely performs the role of verification of the claim and therefore, can only scrutinize the documents and materials produced by the applicant. In case, the material produced by the applicant does not prove his claim, the committee cannot gather evidence on its own to prove or disprove his claim.

¶137

Seen in this context also, we find that when the entry would have been recorded in the Khatian of the grand-father of the appellant, there would have been

¶138

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 18/19

¶139

the least chances of wrong projection of Caste of the grand-father of the appellant, as by that time there would not have been any concept of protective discrimination under the Constitution.

¶140

The argument of Mr. Mangalam that the

¶141

report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Election Commission and of the learned Single Judge are not based on any logic and reason, is incorrect and misplaced. The reason given by the two authorities and the learned Single Judge is quite cogent, clear and succinct and there does not appear to be any pretence of rubber-stamp reasons (refer to M/s. Kranti Associates

¶142

Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. 2010 9 SCC 496; G. Vallikumari vs Andhra Education Society & Ors. 2010 2 SCC 497 ).

¶143

Both C.W.J.C. No. 202 of 2022 and L.P.A. No. 881 of 2023 are thus dismissed but without any order as to costs.

¶144

However, we deem it appropriate to

¶145

Patna High Court L.P.A No.881 of 2023 dt.19-12-2023 19/19

¶146

observe that in the event of the appellant choosing to go before Civil Courts for a final determination based on evidence, of her Caste and holding the entry in the Khatian in the name of her grand-father to be an error of fact, it would be open for her to do so, but with the caveat that the outcome of such litigation would not disturb the decision of the State Election Commission and such decision shall, if in favour of the appellant, operate only prospectively.

¶147

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶148

(Nani Tagia, J)

¶149

krishna/saurabh

¶150

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	19.12.2023
Transmission Date	19.12.2023

Khushboo Ara v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khushboo Ara v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemant Paswan and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Baby Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Faudi Yadav @ Fudi Vs The State Of Bihar

Amin Quireshi Vs The State Of Bihar

Khusboo Ara Vs The State of Bihar

Ramvinay Rai @ Vinay Rai and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar