Smt. Sharda Rajendra Prasad ... vs Smt. Meena Mukesh Jatav
2023 Latest Caselaw 1314 MP

                            1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
                 ON THE 23 rd OF JANUARY, 2023
                 CIVIL REVISION No. 733 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
SMT. SHARDA RAJENDRA PRASAD SOLANKI W/O SHRI
RAJENDRA PRASAD SOLANKI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEYAR HIG 849 OLD HOUSING BOARD
COLONY MORENA DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                    .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI PTSYIP VISORIYA - ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT )

AND
1.    SMT. MEENA MUKESH JATAV W/O SHRI MUKESH
      JATAV, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      HOMEMAKER RESIDENT OF RUI KI MANDI JEEN
      GALI NO. 2 NAGAR MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    ADVOCATE MAMTA MOURYA W/O RMAKANT
      PIPPAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      ADVOCATE, RESIDENT OF BABU JMADAR ROAD
      UTTAM PURA HAL M-10 NEW HOUSING BOARD
      COLONY MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    SMT. LALITA PAWAN AJIT JATAV W/O PAWAN
      AJIT  JATAV, AGED    ABOUT   25 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: HOMEMAKER       RESIDENT OF
      NAYA AAMPURA WARD KRAMANK 42, NAGAR
      MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    ANITA CHOUDHARY W/O LATE DR. HITENDRA
      CHOUDHARY,   AGED  ABOUT    45  YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: HOMEMAKER RESIDENT OF
      WARD NO. 47 PREMNAGAY DISTRICT MORENA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    KU. RITIKA SOLANKI D/O RAJENDRA PRASAD
      SOLANKI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      BUSINESS RESIDENT OF HIG 849 OLD HOUSING
                           2
      BOARD COLONY MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.    COLLECTOR   CUM    RETURNING   OFFICER
      MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ELECTION MORENA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI R.D. JAIN - LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONGWITH SHRI
SANGAM JAIN AND SHRI AJAY SINGH RATHORE, LEARNED ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
SHRI SHARUKH ALAM QURESHI - LEARNED ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.5 )

      Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

This civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC read with Section 441F

of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, is directed against the order dated 16/11/2022 passed by VI District Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Case No. EP 1/2022 dismissing an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC in a proceeding initiated by respondent No.1 under Section 441 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act.

In the said proceedings, election of the applicant as Mayor has been challenged primarily on the ground that even though the applicant is Jatav by caste but can not claim to have SC status in Madhya Pradesh to contest the election of Mayor from Morena reserved for SC woman, as according to counsel for respondent No.1, she is resident of Uttar Pradesh.

It appears that applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to contend that the nature of enquiry sought for is related to residence of the applicant and can not be gone into the election petition as same can only be addressed by the High Level Committee constituted under the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil Vs Additional

Commissioner, 1994 SCC (6) 241.

The Trial Judge has rejected the application with the reasoning that caste certificate of Jatav community is not in dispute. The sole question raised is as to whether the applicant is the resident of Uttar Pradesh or Madhya Pradesh. Hence, under the circumstances, the nature of the enquiry by way of trial in pending proceedings is different from the nature and scope of enquiry by the High Level Committee in the matter of caste verification certificate. Therefore, the proceedings pending can not be said to be either barred in the law or excluded by force of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (Supra).

Upon hearing learned counsels for the parties and perusal of the impugned order, this court is of the view that the Trial Judge did not commit any error of law while passing the impugned order. The mandate contained under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC by way of sub clauses are clear and unambiguous. The instant proceeding neither can be said to be barred by law nor prohibited by the force of judgment of Supreme Court. Hence, contentions advanced in the context of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC are found to be misdirected.

Indeed, in the context of caste or caste verification certificate, High Level Committee has been constituted under the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Madhuri Patil (Supra) and procedure is prescribed but in the instant case, the issue raised is as regard to resident of the applicant. Such question is pure question of fact and can only be addressed by the Trial Judge after the parties lead evidence.

Of course, either party shall have right to raise all questions of law and facts available to them at the appropriate stage of the proceedings before the

Trial Judge.

With the aforesaid observations, civil revision stands disposed of.

(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE Prachi

PRACHI MISHRA 2023.01.25 17:17:34 +05'30'