Laddu Ram Kori vs Jajpal Singh Jajii
2022 Latest Caselaw 11633 MP

                        1
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 AT GWALIOR
         ELECTION PETITION No.08 of 2019
(LADDU RAM KORI VS. JAJPAL SINGH JAJII & OTHERS)

Dated : 05-09-2022
      Shri R.D. Jain - Senior Advocate with Shri Sangam
Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
      Shri V.K. Bhardwaj - Senior Advocate with Shri S.S.
Gautam - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Considered I.A. No.1640/2022, an application under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Section 151 of CPC.

2. This application has been filed by the respondent No.1 seeking a direction to the petitioner to delete the pleadings in respect of Schedule Caste certificate specially in paragraphs 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 35 and 36 as well as ground No.B, C, D, E, G.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.1 that in the aforesaid paragraphs the petitioner has made certain pleadings with regard to the caste certificate of the respondent No.1. Under the orders of this Court, the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has held that the respondent No.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and the said finding cannot be challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. It is further submitted that on 5.8.2022 it was submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.1 that contesting an election on the basis of a disputed caste certificate will not come within the purview of corrupt practice and, therefore, he is making submission in that regard in spite of the fact that this aspect has already been

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR ELECTION PETITION No.08 of 2019 (LADDU RAM KORI VS. JAJPAL SINGH JAJII & OTHERS)

considered and decided by this Court by order dated 4.4.2022. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.1 that Section 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 provides that affidavit should be submitted in Form 25. Form 25 specifically provides that the election petitioner must give a specific declaration to the effect that the statement made in different paragraphs of the election petition about commission of corrupt practice and the particulars of corrupt practice mentioned in the paragraphs of the same petition as well as in paragraphs of the schedule annexed thereto are true to his information. However, in the present writ petition, the affidavit which has been filed does not contain the said declaration. Furthermore, Section 123 of the Representation of People Act defines corrupt practice and contesting the election on the basis of alleged false caste certificate does not amount to corrupt practice. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. A. Balakrishnan and another reported in AIR 2022 SC 2652 has held that what is not provided under the statute can also not be added by the Court. Since there is nothing in Section 123 of Representation of People Act, 1951 to the effect that contesting an election on the basis of false documents will be a corrupt practice, it is clear that even if the allegations made by the petitioner are accepted, still it would not amount to corrupt practice. Further, Section 83 of the Representation of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR ELECTION PETITION No.08 of 2019 (LADDU RAM KORI VS. JAJPAL SINGH JAJII & OTHERS)

People Act, 1951 deals with contents of the petition which requires that that petition must contain concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. It is submitted that so far as the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board and others reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312 is concerned, the same would not apply to the facts of the case because the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 was not taken note of.

4. Per contra, the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent No.1 are opposed by the counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that contesting an election on the basis of false caste certificate would necessarily amount to undue influence as provided under Section 123(2) of Representation of People Act and the said aspect has also been considered and decided by this Court by order dated 4.4.2022 and, therefore, the issue which has already been decided by interlocutory order cannot be re- agitated again and again. It is submitted that undisputedly, the respondent No.1 belongs to Punjab and while staying in Punjab he was holding the caste certificate of OBC. After his migration to M.P., he obtained the caste certificate of Schedule Caste. Whenever the reservation of the seats was changed, the

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR ELECTION PETITION No.08 of 2019 (LADDU RAM KORI VS. JAJPAL SINGH JAJII & OTHERS)

respondent No.1 also changed his caste as per the reservation. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also challenged the decision of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee by filing W.P.No.4794/2020 and it is pending consideration. It is further submitted that the said writ petition may also be taken up along with the present election petition for analogous hearing because once the decision of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee is already sub judice, then the petitioner cannot be non-suited only on the ground that he cannot challenge the decision of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee in the present election petition.

5. In reply, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.1 that it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct for analogous hearing of this election petition along with W.P.No.4794/2020. It is further submitted that when lot of old writ petitions are pending, then why a preference should be given to a relatively new petition which was instituted in the year 2020.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Paragraphs 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 35 and 36 as well as ground No.B, C, D, E, G are in relation to the claim that the respondent No.1 does not belong to Schedule Caste and these paragraphs also contain the history of respondent No.1 and the details of the caste certificates which were obtained by him on earlier occasion. This Court by order dated 4.4.2022 has

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR ELECTION PETITION No.08 of 2019 (LADDU RAM KORI VS. JAJPAL SINGH JAJII & OTHERS)

come to a conclusion that contesting an election on the basis of a false caste certificate would amount to undue influence as provided under Section 123(2) of Representation of People Act and thus in case if it is found that the petitioner has contested the election by relying upon a false caste certificate, then disqualification as provided under Section 8A of Representation of People Act would come into operation. Therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the pleadings made in the above mentioned paragraphs are not concise statement of material facts. Since contesting an election on the basis of false caste certificate amount to undue influence and thus is a corrupt practice, therefore, this Court is not trying to add something to Section 123 of Representation of People Act.

8. So far as affidavit in form 25 is concerned, the petitioner has merely relied upon the previous caste certificates of the respondent No.1. Affidavit which has been given in support of election petition is sufficient to give declaration in respect of pleadings.

9. So far as the contention of the counsel for the parties that the caste certificate issued by one State is not admissible in another State is concerned, it is a matter which is to be decided at the time of final hearing. The previous election was contested by respondent No.1 on the basis of caste certificate issued by State of M.P.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR ELECTION PETITION No.08 of 2019 (LADDU RAM KORI VS. JAJPAL SINGH JAJII & OTHERS)

10. Now the next question for consideration is as to whether this Court while deciding the election petition can comment upon the correctness of the order/finding given by High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee or not?

11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has also filed W.P.No.4794/2020 thereby challenging the decision of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee by which the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No.1 was upheld. The said writ petition is still pending, therefore whether the decision of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee is correct or not can always be adjudicated by this Court in W.P.No.4794/2020.

12. The contention of counsel for respondent No.1 that since lot of old writ petitions are pending, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner against the decision of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee should not be given preference is concerned, the same is misconceived. The election petition has to be decided on priority basis. In the election petition, the petitioner has claimed that the respondent No.1 does not belong to Scheduled Caste and has also criticized the decision given by High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. On one hand the respondent No.1 is claiming that the correctness of the order passed by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be adjudicated by this Court in the election petition but at the same time he wants to delay the disposal of W.P.No.4794/2020 by

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR ELECTION PETITION No.08 of 2019 (LADDU RAM KORI VS. JAJPAL SINGH JAJII & OTHERS)

claiming that since many old writ petitions are pending, therefore, the said writ petition should not be given any preference.

13. The contention of the election petitioner that the respondent No.1 does not belong to the Schedule Caste will depend upon the outcome of W.P.No.4794/2020.

14. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that W.P.No.4794/2020 (Ladduram Kori vs. The State of M.P. And others) should also be taken up along with election petition for analogous hearing.

15. As the respondent No.1 has failed to make out any prima facie case for striking out the pleadings of above-mentioned paragraphs accordingly, I.A.No.1640/2022 is hereby rejected.

16. I.A.No.1639/2022. This is an application for striking down the list of witnesses submitted by the election petitioner on 6.1.2020 and 11.4.2022.

17. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that in both the list of witnesses only one name is common and other names of the witnesses are different and petitioner has not clarified that on which list he wants to place reliance. Since both list of witnesses are not in accordance with the mandate of Order 16 Rule 1(3) of CPC as the petitioner has not stated the purpose for which the witnesses are proposed to be summoned, therefore, both list of witnesses should be rejected.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR ELECTION PETITION No.08 of 2019 (LADDU RAM KORI VS. JAJPAL SINGH JAJII & OTHERS)

18. The petitioner has filed his reply to I.A.No.1639/2022 and submitted that the names of the witnesses which were mentioned in earlier list are not able to appear before this Court because of their ill health and as some of the witnesses had gone out of the State and, therefore, fresh list of witnesses has been submitted. Thus, from reply filed along with I.A.No.1639/2022 it is clear that the petitioner wants to examine the witnesses whose names are mentioned in the list filed on 11.4.2022.

19. So far as the submissions made by the counsel for respondent No.1 that the petitioner has not disclosed the purpose for which he wants to examine the witnesses is concerned, Order 16 Rule 1(2) of CPC governs the field and a party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person is required to file an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned.

20. At present no application under Order 16 Rule 1(2) of CPC has been filed. Accordingly, I.A.No.1639/2022 is dismissed.

21. Heard on I.A.No.40/2020. An application for extension of time for filing list of witnesses.

22. The petitioner has filed his reply and prayed that the right of respondent No.1 to file the list of witnesses be refused.

23. Considered the submission made by the counsel for the parties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR ELECTION PETITION No.08 of 2019 (LADDU RAM KORI VS. JAJPAL SINGH JAJII & OTHERS)

24. The case has not been fixed for recording of evidence. The issues were settled on 7.12.2019. Accordingly, last opportunity is given to respondent No.1 to file the list of his witnesses.

25. Accordingly, I.A.No.40/2020 is hereby disposed of.

26. Heard on I.A.No.41/2020. This application has been filed for striking out the issue Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7.

27. In view of the detailed order passed by this Court on I.A.No.1640/2022, the application has rendered infructuous.

28. Accordingly, I.A.No.41/2020 is dismissed as infructuous.

29. Heard on I.A.No.2335/2022 and I.A.No.2337/2022.

30. It appears that the respondent No.1 has not filed his reply to these applications.

31. Accordingly, a week's time is granted to file reply.

32. It is submitted by the counsel for the parties that no other interlocutory application is pending.

33. Accordingly, list this case on 13.9.2022 for consideration of I.A.No.2335/2022 and I.A.No.2337/2022 as well as for filing list of witnesses by respondent No.1 along with W.P.No.4794/2020.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (alok)

ALOK KUMAR 2022.09.07 14:28:08 +05'30'