Harish K. Kodwani vs Pappi Bhaiya

S.K. Pande, J.—Heard. Contents of petition and impugned order dated 12-11-2002 passed by District Judge, Hoshangabad in Election Case No. 11/2000, perused.

Ward No. 2. Indira Gandhi Ward of Municipal Council, Pipariya was reserved for backward class. Petitioner obtaining a certificate of being member of backward class contested the election and was declared elected as Councillor. Subsequently, the respondent preferred a petition u/s 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 challenging the election aforesaid on the ground that the petitioner being a Sindhi could not have been a member of backward class. He has migrated from Sindh and does not belong to the category of Sonar (Sonara) etc., described in Item No. 38 of the M.P. Government Notification dated 2-4-97. The Court below accepting the contention that the petitioner was not eligible to contest the election of Councillor from Ward No. 2 reserved for backward class, accepted the petition u/s 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 and set aside the election of the petitioner.

In this petition, the order dated 12-11-2002 aforesaid has been assailed on the ground that finding to the aforesaid, as recorded by the Court below is erroneous and suffers from material irregularity. The Court below in its impugned order in Para 8 has relied upon the order passed by this Court in Devi Das Sindhi Vs. Jagdish Vishwakarma and Others, A Sindhi migrated from Sindh was not considered as a member of backward class with reference to the State Govt. notification, therefore, Court below was right in recording the finding to the effect that petitioner was not a member of backward class as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Municipalities Councillor from Ward No. 2 (Indira Gandhi Ward, Pipariya) Distt. Hoshangabad. The election u/s 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 could have been set aside on the basis of aforesaid.

Respondent a member of backward class and the petitioner alone have contested the election. Since the nomination of the petitioner itself was invalid, the respondent was the only candidate left in the election. u/s 21 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, relief of declaring the respondent been duly elected was properly granted per impugned order.

Consequently, the order passed by the Court below is not contrary to law. Revision u/s 26 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their costs. Counsel fee as per rules or certificate (whichever is less).