SMT. SAVITA vs STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and being a Scheduled Caste woman, she contested the election for “Zila Panchayat

Memberâ€​ from Ward No. 2, Block Bahadrabad, Tehsil and District Haridwar, in which respondent no. 7 was elected.Â

The case of the petitioner is that respondent no. 7 contested the election from a seat which was reserved for Scheduled Caste (woman) candidate.

According to the petitioner, respondent no. 7 cannot be given benefit of Scheduled Caste (woman) in Uttarakhand for the reasons that she is a

permanent resident of Delhi and though born in “Jatav†caste, which is admittedly notified as Scheduled Caste in the State of Uttarakhand as well

as in Delhi, but the respondent no. 7 can be given the benefit of her caste only in Delhi in terms of Article 341 of the Constitution of India read with

the Presidential Order, 1950.

In the counter affidavit filed by the private respondent no. 7, she has taken a U-turn and though she admits living with one Moazzam, but denies that

she is married to him and, therefore, her status as a scheduled caste remains unaltered, she would submit.Â

All the same, respondent no. 7’s case before the authorities has been categorical that she is married to Moazzam and from the wedlock they

have three children. Her stand before this Court that she is merely living with Moazzam and is not married to him is clearly to surreptitiously preserve

her Schedule Caste status in law. In order to deceive this Court that respondent no.7 has made a false averment that she has not married to Moazzam,

which apparently appears to be false, as the other documents which are before this Court show that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of

Moazzam.Â

In any case, even assuming for the sake of arguments that private respondent no. 7 has not married Moazzam, the fact remains that she being a

permanent resident of Delhi, this benefit cannot be given to her and, therefore, whichever way we look at it, the schedule caste certificate granted to

her by the State of Uttarakhand is in violation of law.Â

Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Caste certificate issued to respondent no. 7 dated 25.01.2011 is hereby quashed.Â

Meanwhile, considering the fact that a false averment has been made by respondent no. 7 about her marriage, the Registrar General, High Court of

Uttarakhand is hereby directed to lodge a first information report in the matter as per the procedure given in Criminal Procedure Code, against the

deponent i.e. respondent no. 7 who has filed a false averment on oath before this Court. Â

Â

 Â