Case Background
The dispute arises from the election to the post of Ward Councillor of Ward No. 67 of Patna Municipal Corporation held on 04.06.2017. This ward was reserved for candidates belonging to the Extremely Backward Class (EBC) category.
Both the petitioner and Respondent No. 11 contested this election claiming to be from EBC communities. The petitioner is admittedly from the Teli caste, which falls under EBC. Respondent No. 11 claimed to belong to the EBC caste “Awadh Baniya”.
According to the petitioner, Respondent No. 11 was not Awadh Baniya at all, but “Kalwar Baniya” or “Jaiswal/Baniya”, which falls under Backward Class and not EBC. On this basis, he argued that Respondent No. 11 was not eligible to contest from a ward reserved for EBC.
During scrutiny of nomination papers itself, the petitioner objected to the caste status of Respondent No. 11 before the election authorities. Yet the nomination of Respondent No. 11 was accepted and the election was conducted. Respondent No. 11 was declared elected with 4,849 votes, while the petitioner stood second with 3,735 votes.
The petitioner approached the State Election Commission with a complaint during the election process, again questioning Respondent No. 11’s EBC status. An enquiry was conducted. The Election Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna submitted a report dated 21.08.2017 to the District Magistrate, Patna, apparently finding the petitioner’s complaint to be correct. This report was then forwarded to the State Election Commission.
The State Election Commission issued notice to Respondent No. 11 and later referred the caste dispute to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Bihar, Patna (the Committee) by letter dated 10.01.2018 addressed to the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department.
On 29.10.2018, the Committee issued a report (Annexure-16) concluding that Respondent No. 11 belonged to “Kalwar Baniya”, which is listed at Item No. 10 of Schedule-2 of Backward Class. This went against Respondent No. 11’s claim of being Awadh Baniya (EBC).
Respondent No. 11 challenged this adverse finding before the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 22734 of 2018. By order dated 13.11.2019, the Court set aside the earlier orders, including the Committee’s finding, because the conclusion that Respondent No. 11 was “Kalwar Baniya” was not based on clear and cogent material. The Court held that the State authorities should have sought further evidence from the Lucknow administration supporting or clarifying its report regarding the ancestors’ caste instead of taking a hasty decision. The matter was remitted to the Committee for fresh consideration, with directions to give proper hearing to both the present petitioner and Respondent No. 11.
On the same date, another writ petition filed by the present petitioner (CWJC No. 21781 of 2018) seeking a direction to the State Election Commission to decide the question of disqualification of Respondent No. 11 was disposed of in view of the remand order.
After remand, the Committee reconsidered the matter. By its order dated 16.03.2020, it concluded that Respondent No. 11 was in fact “Awadh Baniya”, an EBC caste listed in Schedule-1, and directed that this information be made available to the concerned authorities and parties. This fresh decision in favour of Respondent No. 11 became the subject of the present writ petition (CWJC No. 9547 of 2020).
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad, heard arguments from all sides. The Court framed two broad questions:
First, should the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, interfere with the Committee’s decision dated 16.03.2020 declaring Respondent No. 11 as Awadh Baniya (EBC)?
Second, even if the Committee’s decision were found faulty, could the Court in writ proceedings grant the consequential relief sought by the petitioner – namely, declaring Respondent No. 11 ineligible and treating the petitioner, who secured the second highest votes, as duly elected Ward Councillor?
On facts, the Court noted that the petitioner’s basic challenge was limited to whether Respondent No. 11 was Awadh Baniya or Kalwar/Jaiswal Baniya. There was no dispute that Awadh Baniya is recognized as an EBC caste in Schedule-1, while Kalwar Baniya/Jaiswal Baniya comes under Backward Class in Schedule-2.
The earlier round of litigation had already resulted in the High Court setting aside the Committee’s 2018 finding of “Kalwar Baniya” because it lacked a clear evidentiary basis. The Court had specifically observed that the report of the District Magistrate, Lucknow mentioned that the ancestors of Respondent No. 11 belonged to Awadh Baniya caste. If the authorities wanted more material, they should have asked for it instead of making a vague and unsupported finding.
On remand, the Committee revisited the issue. It considered the report of the District Magistrate, Lucknow, which in turn was based on an enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, Sadar. During that enquiry, local residents of the village where the forefathers of Respondent No. 11 had resided stated that those forefathers were Awadh Baniya and residents of Ismailganj, Lucknow. The Committee particularly took note of one ancestor, Kishan Lal Choudhary, who was found to have been Awadh Baniya.
On this basis, the Committee concluded that Respondent No. 11’s caste was Awadh Baniya, an EBC caste in Schedule-1. It recorded its decision in Hindi, noting that the report of the District Magistrate, Lucknow confirmed that the forefathers of Respondent No. 11 were residents of Ismailganj, Lucknow and members of the Awadh Baniya caste, and therefore his caste should be treated as Awadh Baniya in the list of Extremely Backward Classes.
The petitioner attacked this fresh decision mainly on procedural and evidentiary grounds. His counsel argued that:
The Committee had not truly considered “fresh materials” as directed by the High Court in the earlier case. Instead, it relied upon the same “inconclusive” report of the District Magistrate, Lucknow that had been before it earlier.
He pointed to reports at the level of Revenue Karmchari and Circle Officer in Bihar, which, according to him, showed that Respondent No. 11 was Jaiswal (Kalwar) and not Awadh Baniya.
He also relied on a letter dated 12.08.2017 issued by the Circle Officer informing that a caste certificate earlier granted to Respondent No. 11 had been cancelled on the ground that he belonged to Kalwar caste.
Another important plank of the petitioner’s argument was that the father of Respondent No. 11, Gopal Prasad Jaiswal, held a Public Distribution System (PDS) shop licence. In the official list of PDS dealers prepared by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, his caste was mentioned as Kalwar. The petitioner argued that a man’s caste is determined by his parents’ caste. Since the father was recorded as Kalwar, Respondent No. 11 could not be Awadh Baniya.
The petitioner also referred to a certificate issued by Lucknow Nagar Nigam dated 20.04.2017 stating that the forefathers of Respondent No. 11 were residents of Ismailganj and were Awadh Baniya, and that they had left Ismailganj long ago. He emphasised that this certificate had been available earlier as well and argued that the Committee had changed its stand without any genuinely new material.
In response, counsel for Respondent No. 11 argued that:
Respondent No. 11 had obtained a caste certificate as far back as 27.11.2009, mentioning his caste as “Baniya”. This caste was earlier under BC-2 and later moved to BC-1. The Committee, after remand, had examined the available materials afresh and taken a considered decision after giving both parties a fair hearing.
The High Court then examined how far it could interfere with the Committee’s finding. It noted some key aspects:
There was no dispute that Respondent No. 11 was a long-time resident of Bakhtiyarpur in the district of Patna. It was also accepted that his forefathers had migrated from Lucknow and settled in Bihar several decades ago.
The Committee’s finding was based on the caste of the forefathers of Respondent No. 11, as ascertained from the local enquiry conducted under the orders of the District Magistrate, Lucknow. The Tahsildar’s enquiry had led to statements from local residents confirming the Awadh Baniya caste of those forefathers.
The Court held that the petitioner’s reliance on the father’s caste entry in the PDS dealer list could not be a ground to interfere with the Committee’s decision. The Committee had not been asked to scrutinise the father’s caste; its mandate was to determine the caste status of Respondent No. 11 himself.
The Bench also observed that the Committee’s order disclosed some clear basis for its conclusion. The Committee had heard the parties and considered the materials before it. In such a situation, the High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, should not re-appreciate the evidence or undertake a fresh factual enquiry, especially when the questions were highly disputed.
The Court therefore declined to go into the detailed factual disputes raised by the petitioner in order to challenge the Committee’s order. It held that the impugned order of the Committee dated 16.03.2020 did not require interference on the grounds urged.
However, the Bench made an important clarification. It stated that the petitioner was free to avail “appropriate civil remedies” regarding the declaration of caste status of Respondent No. 11 in accordance with law. In other words, while the writ petition was being dismissed, the door for a properly framed civil suit or other legal proceeding on caste declaration was kept open.
Consequently, the writ application was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for people involved in elections to reserved seats, especially in municipal bodies. It shows that when a specialised body like a State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has examined evidence and given a reasoned finding, the Patna High Court will not lightly disturb that finding in a writ petition.
For candidates, it means that objections to a rival’s caste certificate must be supported by strong, clear evidence at the level of the Committee itself. Merely pointing to conflicting entries in different local records may not be enough to overturn the Committee’s conclusion through a writ.
The decision also clarifies that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is limited when disputed questions of fact and evidence are involved. If someone wants a full factual determination about caste status, the proper remedy may be a civil suit or similar proceeding, not a writ petition.
For election authorities and caste scrutiny bodies, the judgment reinforces that their orders must show some basis and material. When they do so and give both sides an opportunity of hearing, their findings are likely to be respected by the High Court.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Should the Patna High Court interfere with the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee’s order dated 16.03.2020 declaring Respondent No. 11 as Awadh Baniya (Extremely Backward Class)?
Answer: No. The Court held that the Committee’s order was based on material such as the enquiry by the District Magistrate, Lucknow and statements about the forefathers’ caste, and the Court would not re-appreciate such evidence in writ jurisdiction.
Issue: Can the petitioner, on the basis of challenging the rival candidate’s caste status, obtain a declaration in writ proceedings that he himself stands elected as Ward Councillor, having secured the second highest votes?
Answer: The Court did not grant such consequential relief in this writ proceeding and instead dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue appropriate civil remedies regarding caste declaration if so advised.
Cases Cited by the Court
The Court expressly referred to its earlier judgment dated 13.11.2019 in CWJC No. 22734 of 2018, by which the initial caste scrutiny order and related orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9547 of 2020
Case Title: Vikram @ Vikram Sah @ Bikram Sah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (2) PLJR 374
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Date of Judgment: 04.04.2022
Advocates:
For the petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate; Mrs. Bela Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No. 11: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ranjeet Choubey, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Ruchikar Jha, AC to SC-8
For Respondent No. 2 (State Election Commission, Bihar): Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and seeking consequential declaration regarding eligibility and election to a reserved municipal ward.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment on the Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
