1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General for the State-respondent nos.1 to 5, Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6, Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no.7 and perused the records.

2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the District Level Caste Verification Committee, District Muzzafarnagar (respondent no.4), the order dated 15.07.2023 passed by the Divisional Appellate Forum for Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur (respondent no.3) and the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the State Level Caste Verification Committee, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (respondent no.2), whereby the Caste Certificate of the petitioner belonging to ‘Kalal Community’ has been declared to be ‘invalid’.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued a Caste Certificate on 04.03.2011 of ‘Kalal Community’ which is a Backward Caste. The petitioner contested the election of the President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli, Muzzafarnagar in the year 2023 and was declared ‘elected’ as Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli, Muzzafarnagar. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.6 Sri Krishna Pal, the Defeated Candidate in the Election of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli, Muzzafarnagar, has challenged the election of the petitioner through an Election Petition No.05 of 2023 on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Kalal Community’. The respondent no.6 on 18.05.2023 submitted a complaint to the authority against the Caste Certificate of the petitioner asserting that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Kalal Community’. On the complaint of respondent no.6, an inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who submitted a report on 22.05.2023 stating that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Kalal Community’.

4. The petitioner has enclosed a Government Order dated 05.01.1996 at page no.139 to the writ petition which provides the guidelines as to how a Caste Certificate is to be issued and the inquiry is to be conducted relating to the Caste Certificate. The District Level Committee (respondent no.4) by order dated 09.06.2023 cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner holding that the petitioner is not a member of ‘Kalal Community’ and he belongs to ‘Sheikh Community’ which does not come under the category of Backward Class.

5. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Divisional Appellate Forum (respondent no.3). The Divisional Appellate Forum by order dated 15.07.2023 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the order of the District Level Committee dated 09.06.2023 holding that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Kalal Community’.

6. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the State Level Committee (respondent no.2), which was also dismissed by order dated 14.02.2024, and the State Level Committee affirmed the orders dated 09.06.2023 and 15.07.2023.

7. It transpires from the record that the vigilance report was obtained by the State Level Committee which was in favour of the petitioner. However, the State Level Committee by order dated 14.02.2024 rejected the vigilance report and concluded that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Kalal Community’.

8. Challenging the aforesaid orders, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the finding returned by the authorities below that the petitioner is not a member of ‘Kalal Community’ and belongs to ‘Sheikh Community’ is perverse and based upon misappreciation of law. He submits that ‘Sheikh’ is not a caste in the Muslim Community, and in fact ‘Sheikh’ is a title conferred upon the highly revered persons in the Muslim Community. He submits that in such view of the fact, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. In support of the aforesaid arguments, he has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court namely Shamiuddin Vs. Additional District Judge-I, Mathura and others, reported in 1998 (16) LCD-424, Rasheed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2009 (7) ADJ 385 and Qamruddin Vs. District Magistrate, Moradabad & others, reported in 2005 (58) ALR 736.

9. He further submits that the authorities below had erred in law in relying upon the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in concluding that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Kalal Community’, inasmuch as under the Government Order dated 05.01.1996, it is only the vigilance inquiry report which can be considered and, therefore, the reliance placed by the authorities below on the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned orders based upon the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot be sustained in law.

10. He further submits that under the Government Order dated 05.01.1996, it is provided in paragraph 2(2) that the Caste Certificate shall be issued by the authority concerned after following the due procedure contemplated under the Government Order dated 05.01.1996, and after having been satisfied that the person belongs to a particular caste, therefore, there is a presumption about its authenticity and sanctity in law.

11. It is contended that in the present case, the complaint of the respondent no.6 does not disclose that any allegation has been made by the respondent no.6 that the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. It is submitted that the burden was upon the respondents to prove that the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was obtained by fraud or by adopting malpractices, and in the instant case since there was no such allegation, therefore, the sanctity of the Caste Certificate of the petitioner cannot be doubted. The authorities below had failed to consider this aspect of the matter while holding that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Kalal Community’.

12. He further submits that even the vigilance report which has been submitted by the State Agencies is in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the Apex Court in paragraph 12(7) in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 241 held that once the vigilance report is in favour of the petitioner and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken. Accordingly, it is submitted that once the vigilance report is in favour of the petitioner, the State Level Committee has erred in law in rejecting the vigilance report on the ground that the vigilance report had been submitted only on the basis of oral evidence.

13. He further submits that the State Level Committee did not have any jurisdiction to override the vigilance report in view of paragraph 12(7) of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). He further submits that the finding returned by the State Level Committee that the vigilance report cannot be considered for the reason that it is based upon oral evidence is misconceived and is in the teeth of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Bindra Prasad Gond Vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 2014 (3) ADJ 595 (DB) which specifically states that oral evidence is necessary to be collected from the persons of the area in which the candidate resides and who know about the social status of the candidate.

14. It is submitted that the finding of the State Level Committee that the Vigilance Committee has considered the oral evidence is perverse and against the record, inasmuch as the report of the Vigilance Committee reveals that it had considered various documents with regard to Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner as well as relatives of the petitioner in which their caste has been disclosed as ‘Kalal’, and in such view of the fact, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside by this Court.

15. Per contra, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General for the State-respondent nos.1 to 5 would contend that the impugned orders have been passed after considering the relevant materials on record. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon documents referred to at serial nos.8 and 9 of the order dated 15.07.2023 passed by the Divisional Level Committee to contend that the petitioner had contested the election of Local Body General Election, 2006, and in the list of declaration of results with regard to Election of Nagar Palika Parishad, Katauli, Muzzafarnagar, the name of the petitioner had been shown in the ‘Unreserved Category’. Similarly, the document referred to at serial no.9 in the order dated 15.07.2023 is the result of the Khatauli Legislative Assembly Election, 2012, in which again the petitioner had been shown as ‘General Category’ candidate, and thus it is evident that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Kalal Community’ and belongs to ‘General Category’.

16. He further submits that there is no document on record prior to the date 07.07.2000 on which date the ‘Kalal’ caste was notified as Backward Class which could establish that the petitioner belongs to ‘Kalal Community’, and since the petitioner has failed to discharge his burden that he belongs to ‘Kalal Community’, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are in accordance with law and do not call for any interference by this Court.

17. He further submits that the report of the Vigilance Committee is not biding upon the State Level Committee in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles alias Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 494 and, therefore, the authorities below have not committed any illegality in holding that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Kalal Community’.

18. Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that the Government Order dated 05.01.1996 does not relate to the inquiry after issuance of Caste Certificate. In fact, the Government Order dated 05.01.1996 is in respect to the issuance of Caste Certificate and, therefore, the Government Order dated 05.01.1996 does not have any bearing in the facts of the present case. He has also adopted the arguments raised by Sri Ashok Mehta.

19. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

20. The facts as is evident from the records are that the ‘Kalal Community’ was notified as Backward Class by notification dated 07.07.2000. The petitioner was issued a Caste Certificate of ‘Kalal Community’ on 04.03.2011. The petitioner contested the election of the President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli, Muzzafarnagar in the year 2023, in which he was declared ‘elected’ as President. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.6 raised a complaint against the Caste Certificate of the petitioner, and in consequence whereof, an inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who submitted a report on 22.05.2023 against the petitioner stating that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Kalal Community’ rather he belongs to ‘Sheikh Community’.

21. The question is whether ‘Sheikh’ is any caste in the Muslim Religion or is a title conferred upon the revered persons in the Muslim Community is no more res integra and has been settled by this Court in several judgments, wherein this Court has held that ‘Sheikh’ is no caste in the Muslim Religion rather ‘Sheikh’ is a title conferred upon the highly revered persons in the Muslim Community. In this respect, it would be apt to refer to judgment of this Court in the case of Shamiuddin Vs. Additional District Judge-I, Mathura and others, reported in 1998 (16) LCD-424. Paragraph 14 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

“14. It is thus evident that 'Sheikh' is a title of respect. Such title, it cannot be gainsaid, is not the exclusive privilege of a member of Upper/Forward class. A person belonging to Muslim backward class may also be given such a title of respect by the people of his community. At the risk of repetition, it may be stated that the petitioner has specifically pleaded in his written statement that 'Sheikh' did not denote any particular caste in Muslim community, but this question was not gone into either by the prescribed authority or the revisional court and a perusal of the revisional order would indicate that the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Mathura proceeded to decide the controversy involved in the case on an assumption that 'Sheikh' denotes a caste in the Muslim Community. It cannot be gainsaid that a decision rendered by a court sans proper self-direction to the relevant question involved in the case suffers from the vice of manifest illegality which may warrant interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. It is a matter of common knowledge that even in Hindu Community a person with the surname “Singh” may or may not be a member of backward class. Similarly, a person with the surname 'Pandey' or 'Mishra' cannot necessarily be said to be a member of Brahiman Community. No authority was cited at the Bar on the caste hierarchy of Muslims to support that 'Sheikh' stands for a caste amongst Mohammedans. The fact that the petitioner's ancestors were described as 'Sheikh' in the revenue records does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to 'Momin Ansar' by caste. This title might be due to the reason of respect which his ancestors had been commanding in the area of their influence among the people of his community by virtue of their vintage position on account of power and influence in the society as Zamindars which admittedly they were. The controversy in my opinion has not been decided in correct perspective. The judgments and orders under challenge suffer from manifest illegality and, therefore, cannot be sustained.”

22. It would be useful to have another judgment Rasheed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2009 (7) ADJ 385 on the aforesaid point. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

“9. Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recital in the sale deed describing the petitioner as Sheikh was irrelevant and that even if the recital in the sale deed describing the petitioner as Sheikh is assumed to be correct, no conclusion can be drawn therefrom that the petitioner is not Sheikh or that he belongs to the upper caste. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Shamiuddin v. Addl. District Judge, Mathura and others, 1998 (16) LCD 424. In that case, the learned Single Judge has referred to various dictionary meaning including the meaning of the word 'Sheikh as given in Encyclopaedia Britannica- 1968 Edition Vol.20, Webster's Third New International Dictionary Volume III and according to Collins Dictionary, Sheikh means the head of an Arab tribe, village etc. The view taken by the learned Judge on the basis of the aforesaid material is that Sheikh is a title of respect. Such title is not the exclusive privilege of a member of upper/Forward-class. Learned Judge observed as follows:

"Meaning of the word 'Sheikh' as given in Encyclopaedia Britannica-1968 Edition Vol. 20 may aptly be quoted here as under:

"Sheikh (SHEIKH OR SHAYKH), an Arabic title of respect dating from Pre-Islamic authority, strictly means a venerable man, of more than 50 years of age. It is specifically borne by heads of religious orders, head of Colleges (e.g. Al Azhar in Cairo), Chiefs of tribes and headman of villages and of separate quarters of town. It is also applied to learned men, especially members of the class of 'ulama' (q.u.) and has been applied to any one who had memorized the whole Koran, however young he might be."

It is thus evident that 'Sheikh' is a title of respect. Such title, it cannot be gainsaid, is not the exclusive privilege of a member of Upper/Forward class. A person belonging to Muslim Backward class may also be given such a title of respect by the people of his community."

10. Nothing has been brought to our notice to indicate that the view taken in Shamiuddin's case is erroneous. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in that case. The description of the father of the petitioner as 'Sheikh' is not sufficient material for holding that the petitioner is not Sheikh Sarwari or that he belongs to the upper caste. No oral evidence was led before the Tehsildar. In our view, the question as to whether the petitioner belongs to the upper caste or not could not have been decided only on the basis of the description of the petitioner's family members as "Sheikh". In the absence of documentary evidence about the petitioner's caste the question could only be decided on the basis of oral evidence. On the facts of this case, the Tehsildar could not have decided the issue without oral evidence. There was thus no relevant material before the Tehsildar for cancelling the caste certificate and the order of the Tehsildar is liable to be set aside.”

23. In the case of Qamruddin Vs. District Magistrate, Moradabad & others, reported in 2005 (58) ALR 736, the Division Bench affirmed the judgment of this Court in the case of Shamiuddin (supra). Paragraph 4 of the Division Bench judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

“4. The learned Single Judge in a well considered judgment has noted that ‘Sheikh’ does not denote a Muslim caste. It is a title of respect and it is not a title for any particular caste. He relied on a decision of this Court in Shamiuddin v. Additional District Judge (I) Mathura and others. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the judgment in the case of Shamiuddin v. Additional District Judge (I) Mathura and others we are in respectful agreement with the view taken therein.”

24. Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General for the State-respondent nos.1 to 5, also does not dispute the fact that ‘Sheikh’ is not a caste in the Muslim Community rather it is a title conferred upon the highly revered persons in the Muslim Community.

25. In view of the aforesaid submissions of Sri Ashok Mehta and ratio of law laid down in catena of judgments referred to above, it is held that the ‘Sheikh’ is not a caste in the Muslim Community rather it is a title conferred upon the highly revered persons in the Muslim Community. Thus, the finding returned by the District Level Committee affirmed by the Divisional Level Committee and the State Level Committee that the petitioner belongs to ‘Sheikh Community’ is erroneous and against the settled principles of law.

26. Now, so far as the question whether on the complaint of the respondent no.6 any report could be summoned from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate with regard to authenticity or veracity of Caste Certificate of the petitioner and the authorities below could rely upon the said report is concerned, at this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant extract of the Government Order dated 05.01.1996. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Government Order dated 05.01.1996 are reproduced hereinbelow:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

27. It is also relevant to reproduce paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra):

“12. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily have the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:

1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.

2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the concerned Directorate.

3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.

4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates.

In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.

5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc.

6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or “doubtful” or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the concerned educational institution in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.

7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.

8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates.

9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.

10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.

11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.”

28. The Apex Court in paragraphs 12(5) and 12(6) of the judgment of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) has categorically held that the Vigilance Report Cell shall be constituted by Director consisting of a Superintendent of Police in over-all in-charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. Paragraph 12(5) provides a elaborate procedure which is to be followed by the Vigilance Inspector. Paragraph 12(6) specially provides that in case the Vigilance Officer finds that the claim of social status of a candidate to be not genuine or doubtful or spurious or wrongly claimed, he shall issue a notice to the candidate supplying therewith a copy of the report of Vigilance Officer to show cause, and thereafter pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in respect thereof. In paragraph 12(7), it is provided that in case the vigilance report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken.

29. The Government Order dated 05.01.1996 does not talk of any report by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. No provision of law has been placed under which inquiry could be entrusted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to verify the authenticity or genuineness of Caste Certificate of a candidate. It is only the Vigilance Report Cell which is competent to hold an inquiry in regard to the veracity or genuineness of Caste Certificate of a candidate.

30. The report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the authority is not conferred power to relegate the Sub- Divisional Magistrate to hold any inquiry with regard to the validity of Caste Certificate of a candidate. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the authorities below have erred in law in placing reliance upon the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

31. It is also pertinent to note that a procedure has been contemplated under the Government Order dated 05.01.1996 which states that the concerned Officer/Competent Officer, after having been satisfied with regard to genuineness of caste of the petitioner, shall issue a Caste Certificate. In this respect, paragraphs 2(1) and 2(2) of the Government Order dated 05.01.1996 are relevant and are reproduced hereinbelow:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

32. The perusal of paragraph 2(1) of the Government Order dated 05.01.1996 discloses that for obtaining Caste Certificate, the candidate has to submit an application in the region to which he belongs and where he is born which shall be accompanied by an affidavit containing the details of his caste, sub-caste, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, and in the case of Backward Class, a certificate by the Director, Backward Class Welfare. The Competent Authority after having been satisfied with respect to caste of the person shall issue a certificate under paragraph 2(2) of the Government Order dated 05.01.1996.

33. So it is evident from paragraph 2(1) of the Government Order dated 05.01.1996 that a procedure has been contemplated which is to be followed by the Competent Authority before issuing Caste Certificate, and the Competent Authority, after having been satisfied with regard to correctness of caste of a candidate, shall issue Caste Certificate to the person in terms of paragraph 2(2) of the Government Order dated 05.01.1996.

34. Once a Caste Certificate has been issued, after following the due procedure as contemplated under the judgment of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) read with the Government Order dated 05.01.1996, there is a presumption about its sanctity and genuineness and it cannot be discarded merely on a complaint without there being any allegation or material on record indicating that Caste Certificate had been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. In the instant case, the record reflects that the complaint of the respondent no.6 does not state that the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner was obtained by fraud or by misrepresentation.

35. The counsel for the respondent no.6 Sri V.K. Singh, has invited the attention of the Court to relevant paragraph of the order dated 09.06.2023 where the District Level Committee has referred to the evidence filed by the respondent no.6. A perusal of the evidence filed by the respondent no.6 does not disclose that there is any allegation with regard to the fact that the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner had been obtained by fraud or misappreciation. Once, the respondent no.6 has assailed the validity of the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner, the burden is on the respondent no.6 to show that it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.

36. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the vigilance report, wherein the statement of the Lekhpal has been recorded regarding issuance of the Caste Certificate. In his statement, he has stated that the respondent no.6 did not submit any complaint with regard to issuance of Caste Certificate to the petitioner. The statement of the Lekhpal also reflects that a Caste Certificate bearing serial No.02611300995/1735 was earlier issued to the petitioner on 04.03.2011.

37. The relevant extract of the statement of Lekhpal is reproduced hereinbelow:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

38. The statement of the Lekhpal recorded by the Vigilance Committee reflects that the Lekhpal conducted the inquiry about the caste of the petitioner and thereafter submitted the report. Therefore, in the absence of any material on record indicating that the Caste Certificate was obtained by fraud or misappreciation, the sanctity of the Caste Certificate, which was issued to the petitioner after following the due procedure in law, cannot be doubted or ignored. This Court is of the view that the authorities below had failed to consider this aspect of the matter while holding that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Kalal Community’.

39. Now, coming to the last submission of Sri Shashi Nandan that the finding of the State Level Committee that the report of the Vigilance Committee is not worthy reliance since it based upon the oral evidence is perverse, inasmuch as the Caste Certificate of close relatives of the petitioner was considered by the Vigilance Committee while recording a finding that the petitioner belongs to ‘Kalal Community’.

40. He submits that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Bindra Prasad Gond (supra), the oral evidence is necessary to be collected from the person of the area in which the candidate resides who know about the social status of the candidate. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Bindra Prasad Gond (supra), the Vigilance Committee has not committed any error of law in considering the oral statement of the relatives of the petitioner and other persons residing in the area in which the petitioner resides who have categorically stated that the petitioner belongs to ‘Kalal Community’.

41. The vigilance report also reflects that the Vigilance Committee has considered various ‘Nikaahnama’ of the petitioner’s elder brothers which is of the year 1978 and 1984 reflecting that the brothers of the petitioner were married to women who belonged to the ‘Kalal Community’. The Vigilance Committee in its report dated 11.12.2023, annexed at page 89- 90 of the paper-book, has also considered the Caste Certificate of various relatives of the petitioner in paragraphs 7(i), 7(ii), 7(iii) and 7(iv). Therefore, this Court finds that the finding of the State Level Committee that the Vigilance Committee has only considered the oral evidence is perverse.

42. The judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the counsel for the respondents in the case of Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles alias Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana (supra) on the point that the vigilance report is not biding upon the State Level Committee is not applicable in the present case, inasmuch as in the said case, the Apex Court considered rule 13(b) and 13(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance of Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 which specifically provides that the findings recorded and the opinion expressed by the Vigilance Cell shall not be binding on Scrutiny Committee nor it could be used as an evidence in respect of Schedule Castes who converts to Bhudhism, De-notified Tribes, whereas in the present case, there is no such rule.

43. Further, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) once the vigilance report is in favour of the candidate and the veracity of which is not doubted, no further inquiry is required. In the instant case, since the vigilance report has been submitted in favour of the petitioner, therefore, in view of paragraph 12(7) of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), no further inquiry is required in the absence of any challenge to the veracity of the vigilance report and for this reason also, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law.

44. Though, it has been urged by the counsel for the respondent that no public document relating to petitioner prior to 07.07.2000 i.e. the date on which the ‘Kalal Community’ was notified as Backward Class, is on record, but that is not relevant in the facts of the present case inasmuch as from perusal of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the vigilance report appearing at page 80 to 90 of the paper-book, it is evident that various documents prior to 07.07.2000 have been considered by the Vigilance Committee while concluding that the petitioner belongs to ‘Kalal Community’.

45. It is also pertinent to note that the State Level Committee has not recorded any finding doubting the veracity of the various documents relied upon by the Vigilance Committee, and in the absence of any evidence on record showing that the documents on which the reliance has been placed by the Vigilance Committee were obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, the Vigilance Committee was under obligation to consider those documents in submitting the report. Therefore, the argument of the respondents that there was no public document prior to 07.07.2000 showing that the petitioner belongs to ‘Kalal Community’ is misconceived.

46. So far as the contention of the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has contested the election of Local Body as a General Candidate and is a Member of Legislative Assembly since 2012, and he contested the said election as a General Candidate, it is not disputed that the two seats for which the petitioner contested were for the General Category candidates and not for the Reserved Category candidates, therefore, in such circumstances, it was not at all necessary for the petitioner to disclose the caste to which he belongs to.

47. Though, counsel for the respondent no.6 has placed reliance upon Annexure No.CA-4 to the counter affidavit to contend that the list of Local Body General Election, 2006 reflects that the petitioner contested the election as a General Candidate, at this point, this Court may note that such evidence cannot be relied upon to conclude that the petitioner has shown his caste in the nomination form as General Category. The document annexed to Annexure No.CA-4 to the counter affidavit has not been signed by the petitioner and has been issued by the authority concerned and, therefore, the fact recorded in CA-4 that petitioner has contested the Election as General Candidate is required to be proved in accordance with law.

48. There may have been some substance in the submission of counsel for the respondents, if the respondents had filed the nomination form of the petitioner showing that the petitioner had filled-up his caste in the nomination form as a General Category Candidate to support the document-CA-4, but in the instant case, no such evidence is on record.

49. The counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Government Order dated 05.01.1996 is in respect to the procedure for issuing Caste Certificate and is not a Government Order which provides for verification of Caste Certificate, therefore, the judgment of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. The counsel for respondent no.6 could not place any Statute or Government Order which provides for procedure for verification of Caste Certificate whereas paragraph 12 of the judgment of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) provides for scrutiny of Caste Certificate. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court for verification or scrutiny of Caste Certificate, procedure provided in paragraph 12 of the Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) judgment be adhered to by the authorities for scrutiny or verification of a Caste Certificate. For the said reason, the argument of learned counsel for respondent no.6 that judgment of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) is not applicable in the present case is fallacious and does not stand to merit.

50. Thus, for the reasons given above, this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by the authorities below is per se illegal and is against the records.

51. Accordingly, the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the District Level Caste Verification Committee, District Muzzafarnagar (respondent no.4), the order dated 15.07.2023 passed by the Divisional Appellate Forum for Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur (respondent no.3), and the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the State Level Caste Verification Committee, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (respondent no.2) are, hereby, set aside.

52. For the reasons given above, the Caste Certificate No.026233001513 dated 29.03.2023 as well as the earlier Caste Certificate No.02611300995/1735 dated 04.03.2011 issued to the petitioner of ‘Kalal Community’ is found to be genuine and true and is hereby declared ‘valid’.

53. The writ petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed without any order as to cost.