LexKISHORILAL HANS versus RAJA RAM SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
63~
KJ,.sHORILAL HANS
v.
RAJA RAM SINGH & ORS.
November 30, 1971
(K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Co11stitutio11 (Sched11led Cas1es) Order 1950 and Scheduled
Tribes
Lim (Modificaiion) Order 1956--Jatav casle not mentioned as Scheduled
casle in Dalia Districl of Madhya Pradesh-Election petition-Candidate
belonging to Jatav caste-seeking to prove that Jatav caste is included in
chamar caste lvhiclf Is mentioned in order-Such inquiry not permissible
in view of :A.rt. 341 of Constitution.
The appellant was declared
elected in February 1967 from the
· Bhander Assembly constituency in District Dat.ia of the State of Madhya
Pradesh-a seat which was reserved for a scheduled
caste candidate.
Under the Constitution (S\:heduled Castes) Order 1950 and
Scheduled
Tribes Lists (Modification) Order 1956 the President.of India had declared
in respect of District Datia the various castes which were to be recognised
as Scheduled castes.
In item 3 thereof the castes mentioned were :
·Chama\", Ahir\\o·ar, Chumar Mangam, Machi .and R'3idas.' The respon-
dent. an unsuccessful candidate at the said election filed an election peti~
tion inter alia on the ground that the appellant, \Vas a Jatav by caste and
therefore not a member of any of the scheduled castes mentioned in the·
Presidential Order. The appellant contended that the Jatav caste was a
sub-easte of the caste chamar mentioned in the order. The High Court
'decided· against the appellant who appealed to this Court.
HELD : From the eviJence there was little room fo" doubt that al·
•hough at one tilnc Jatavs might have been cban1ars but they became a
distinct caste or came to be rccognjsed as a separate caste several years
ago. The fact that thev were shown separately as a caste in the Madhya
Bharat and several others states in the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Trib.:s
Order (Amcndn1cnt) Act J 956 sho\vs that the existence of Jatav caste \vas
recognised.
f6-r~ C]
The evidence in the- forn1 of rcprcs..:ntations nu1de by the 1nc1nbcrs of
Jatav community including the .. returned
candidate hin1sclf apart
fron1
UJll?G U! uaAa O}St?:> AUlP.f J.O ;:lJU:llS[XQ OtJl paqsnqeJSJ 'a:>U~P!A=> {CJO .I:>410
district but it so hoppened that it was not included either in the Act of
1956 or the Presidential Order among the Scheduled Caste,. [642 EJ
If the matter \Vere- res-integra there might have been a goo<l
deal of
difficulty in reconciJin~ with the
constitutional provisions the
schcn1c
folloYled in the Presidential Orders by which the sa1ne caste has been jn-
cluded in son1c districts of the san1c State andi excluded in other districts.
This C:ourt, how~ver in Bhaiyalal v. Balkishan SinC?h & Ors. made observa-
tion~ rcpelEng the contention that under Art. 341 of the Constitution th~
Pl'~si<lcnt \Va'> not authorised to limit the notification to parts of a State.
·
[644 Cl
Jn Bhaiyala/'s case it was also hdd that the plea that though the appel·
tant was not a char.~ .. 1r as such he could claiin the same status by reason
of the fact that he bclon~cd to the Dohar caste which is a sub-caste of the
chamar caste, could not be accepted.
An inquiry of that kind v.·as held
not he permissible having- rcgnrd to the provision of Art. 341 of the Con-
situation.
The case of Basavalingappa v. M1111ichi1111appa
\Vas
referred
A
c
E
f
G
H
c
K!SHORILAL v. RAJA RAM (Grorer, J.)
633
to.
folloY..ing these two decisions it !11ust be held _that the returned candi-
date, in the present case, was not entitled to establtsh that J:1tav caste was
rhe same as C'hamar. (644 F-H]
The appeal nlust accordingly be dismissed.
Bhaiya/al v_ Harikislzan Singh, ~1965] :! S.C.R. 877 and
Basaralin-
gappa v . • '>frrnicliimrappa, [1965] I S.C.R. 316. applied.
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISD!CTio:-< : Civil Appea's Nos. 2123
,md 2237 of 1969.
Appeals under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated August 29. 1965
of the Madhya I'_radesh High Court, Indore Bench in Election
Petition No. 18 of 1967.
Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 2123 of
1969) and respondent No. 1 (in <:;.A. No. 2237 of 1969).
A. K. Sen, G. L. Sanghi and K. P. Gupt'a, for respondent No.
I (in C.A. No. 2123 of 1969) and the appellant (in C.A. No.
D
2237 of 1969).
F
G
II
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Grover, J.
These are two cross
appeals from a judgment
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
We shall give tile facts oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.