KURAPATI MARIA DAS versus DR. AMBEDKAR SEVA SAMAJAN & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 17-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 498 
A 
KURAPATI MARIA DAS 
v. 
DR. AMBEDKAR SEVA SAMAJAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2617 of 2009) 
B 
APRIL 17, 2009 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Al 
Writ jurisdiction: Writ of quo warranto - Challenging the 
election of appellant as Councilor/Chairperson on the ground 
.....
c that the office of Councilor/Chairperson was reserved for 
Scheduled Caste and appellant got himself elected by 
making false claim of being member of Scheduled Caste -
High Court allowed the writ petition - On appeal, held: It was 
not for High Court to enter into the disputed question of fact 
D regarding the caste status of appellant -
The two caste 
certificates obtained by appellant were valid and genuine and 
were not cancelled under section 5 of 1993 Act- High Court 
exceeded its jurisdiction in relying on the service records of 
the appellants and in calling the files of the Electricity Board 
E where the appellant was previously working - This amounted 
to a roving enquiry into caste of appellant which was certainly 
not permissible in writ jurisdiction and also in the wake of 
Section 5 of 1993 Act- Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, 
Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue 
F of Community Certificates Act, 1993 - s.5 - Andhra Pradesh 
Municipalities (Decision on Election Disputes) Rules, 1967 
- r.1 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 243ZG(b) -
Election laws. 
The appellant was elected as a councillor in the 
G election. Later on he was elected as the chairperson of 
• 
the council by all the elected councilors. The office of 
councilor/chairperson was reserved for the Scheduled 
Castes. Appellant claimed that he belonged to the 
Scheduled Caste namely 'Mala'. After 6 months of election 
H 
498 
KURAPATI MARIA DAS v. DR. AMBEDKAR SEVA 499 
SAMAJAN & ORS. 
-\ 
of appellant as chairperson, a representation was filed 
A 
before the Superintendent of Police for initiation of action 
against the appellant on the ground that he got himself 
elected by making false claim of being a member of 
Scheduled Caste. Similar representation was made to 
Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Caste 
B 
/Tribes. A complaint was made before the District 
Collector under section 5 r.w. section 12 of the Andhra 
Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and 
Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community 
Certificates Act, 1993. 
c 
A writ of quo warranto was filed praying for direction 
to the appellant to vacate the office of chairperson. An 
application was also filed praying the Court to receive a 
copy of the report of the Inspector of Police giving the 
D 
details of the representations. Along with the writ petition, 
the first respondent also filed a copy of service records 
of appellant maintained by previous employer, the State 
Electricity Board. It was pointed that in these documents 
the appellant was described as the Christian Mala 
belonging to the Backward Class 'C' category. It was 
E 
averred that appellant converted to Christianity and that 
he had obtained employment in the State Electricity 
Board. 
~. 
The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that 
F 
it was a case of play of fraud on the Constitution 
depriving the Scheduled Caste category persons from 
being elected to the respective offices though the said 
respective offices were reserved for the said category and 
it was a fit case where the appellant could not be G 
+ 
permitted any longer to occupy the respective offices. 
Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The bar to interference by courts in H 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A electoral matters contained in Article 243ZG(b) of the 
Constitution of India, 1950 is absolute. Normally when 
such a bar is expressed in a negative language as is the 
case here, it has to be held that the tone of clause (b) is 
mandatory and the bar created therein is absolute. There 
B is no dispute that Rule 1 of the Andhra Pradesh 
Municipalities (Decision on Election Disputes) Rules, 
1967, specifically provides for challenging the election of 
Councillor or Chairman. The writ petition filed before the 
High Co~rt clearly suggested that what was challenge~ 
c was the election. The affidavit in support of the petition 
specifically suggested that Ward No. 8 was reserved for 
the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes from 
where the appellant contested the election representing 
himself to be a person belonging to the Scheduled C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.