IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

<>

&

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

<>

ON THE 9

<>

th

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

WRIT APPEAL No. 39 of 2024

<>

BRAJESH SINGH

<>

Versus

RAM PRASAD DEHARIA AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Rohit Sohgaura -

Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Sarwate - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Ritwik Parashar - Goverment Advocate for respondent No.9.

ORDER

<>

Per

<>

: Justice Pradeep Mittal

<>

The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the

judgment and order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of

this Court in W.P. No.29557/2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the

appellant was dismissed. By the said writ petition, the appellant had

challenged the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur

Division, acting as the Election Tribunal.

2. By order dated 16.11.2023, the Election Tribunal allowed the

election petition filed by respondent No.1 and set aside the election of the

appellant to the post of Member, Zila Panchayat, Seoni. The Tribunal held

1 WA-39-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11444

that Bagri/Bagdi caste falls under Rajput/Thakur caste in District Seoni and

is not recognised as a Scheduled Caste as per various Government orders.

On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not belong to the

Scheduled Caste category and, therefore, was not qualified to contest the

election for a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste under Rule 31(1) of the M.P.

Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 and Section 14(2) of the Panchayat and

Gram Swaraj Act, 1993. Consequently, the election of the appellant was

declared void under Rules 21(1)(a) and 23(1)(b) of the M.P. Panchayat

(Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification from Membership)

Rules, 1995, with a direction to hold fresh election.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Election Tribunal, the appellant

approached this Writ Court by filing W.P. No.29557/2023, contending that

the election petition was decided without framing issues and without

granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, despite specific request

having been made. It was pleaded that the controversy relating to wrongful

acceptance of the nomination form could not have been adjudicated without

recording evidence, particularly when the appellant had filed a detailed reply

supported by documents showing compliance with Rule 40A of the M.P.

Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 and the Circular dated 13.12.2021. It was

further contended that the Election Tribunal erred in determining the caste

status of the appellant solely on the basis of executive instructions, without

any evidentiary foundation and in disregard of the Constitutional (Scheduled

Castes) Order, 1950.

4. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition vide

2 WA-39-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11444

impugned order dated 28.12.2023, holding that as per Form-4 prescribed

under Rule 31 of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, as amended

by notification dated 24.04.2019, submission of caste certificate along with

the nomination form is mandatory. It was held that since the appellant did not

file the caste certificate within the stipulated time, the nomination itself was

defective and ought to have been rejected at the stage of scrutiny by the

Returning Officer.

5. The appellant has now preferred the present writ appeal, contending

that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the statutory

scheme of the Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. It is urged that Rule 40A, which

begins with a non-obstante clause, specifically provides a complete

mechanism in cases where the Returning Officer doubts the caste status of a

candidate contesting from a reserved seat. As per Rule 40A(2), once the

candidate files an affidavit affirming his caste status, the Returning Officer is

required to treat the nomination as valid without making any further enquiry.

It is further contended that the portion of Form-4 relied upon by the learned

Single Judge pertains to the part to be filled by the Returning Officer and

merely records the documents enclosed, and does not mandate rejection of

nomination for non-submission of caste certificate along with the nomination

form.

6. It is also the appellant’s case that Form-4 must be read

harmoniously with Rule 40A, failing which the said statutory provision

would be rendered redundant. The appellant further submits that the learned

Single Judge travelled beyond the pleadings of the parties and the reasoning

3 WA-39-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11444

adopted by the Election Tribunal, and therefore, the impugned judgment

warrants interference in the present writ appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and

order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ

petition was dismissed, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled

principles of law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

8. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has completely

misconstrued the scope and mandate of Rule 40A of the M.P. Panchayat

Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, which begins with a non-obstante clause and

provides a complete statutory mechanism in cases where the caste status of a

candidate contesting from a reserved seat is doubted. It is submitted that as

per Rule 40A(1), if the Returning Officer has any prima facie doubt

regarding the caste of a candidate, he is required to issue a notice calling

upon the candidate to file an affidavit. Rule 40A(2) further mandates that

once such an affidavit is filed, the Returning Officer shall make no further

enquiry and shall treat the nomination as valid. The learned Single Judge

failed to appreciate that the instructions issued by the State Election

Commission are in consonance with Rule 40A and supplement the statutory

framework.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge

erred in ignoring the vital issue of non-framing of issues and denial of

opportunity to lead evidence by the Election Tribunal. It is argued that an

election petition is required to be tried like a civil suit and must be decided

strictly on the pleadings raised by the parties. The Election Tribunal decided

4 WA-39-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11444

the matter without framing issues or recording evidence, despite a specific

request by the appellant. The learned Single Judge wrongly declined to

examine this illegality on the premise that the nomination itself was

defective, which approach is contrary to settled law.

10. It is also argued that though the learned Single Judge rightly held

that the finding of the Election Tribunal regarding Bagri caste not being a

Scheduled Caste in District Seoni was contrary to the Presidential Order, he

nevertheless travelled beyond the pleadings of the parties and substituted his

own reasoning to uphold the Tribunal’s order on a ground never pleaded by

the election petitioner. Such an approach, it is submitted, is impermissible in

election matters, where adjudication must strictly confine itself to the

pleadings.

11. Learned counsel submits that the reliance placed by the learned

Single Judge on Form-4 is wholly misconceived. The relevant portion of

Form-4 pertains to the part to be filled by the Returning Officer and merely

acknowledges the documents enclosed with the nomination paper. It

nowhere mandates rejection of nomination for non-submission of caste

certificate along with the nomination form. Form-4 has to be read

harmoniously with Rule 40A, failing which Rule 40A would be rendered

redundant. It is further pointed out that no such provision akin to Rule 40A

exists under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or the Municipal

laws, and the Legislature has consciously incorporated Rule 40A for

Panchayat elections keeping in view the realities faced by rural and rustic

candidates.

5 WA-39-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11444

12. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to

appreciate the constitutional status of the State Election Commission under

Article 243-K of the Constitution of India, which vests in it the power of

superintendence, direction and control of Panchayat elections. The

instructions issued by the State Election Commission, being in furtherance of

Rule 40A and meant for smooth conduct of elections, are binding and govern

the field. The finding of the learned Single Judge holding such executive

instructions to be bad in law is, therefore, erroneous and unsustainable.

13. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the observations made by the

learned Single Judge regarding alleged confusion created by the State

Election Commission by continuing the Circular dated 05.12.2014 are based

on surmises and conjectures. The said Circular has been consciously adopted

and reiterated by subsequent notifications dated 19.03.2021, 13.12.2021 and

02.06.2022. The reliance placed on the Guidelines of July, 2020 is also

misplaced, as the said guidelines themselves clarify that they are only

advisory and subject to statutory rules.

14. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays that

the impugned judgment and order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the learned

Single Judge be set aside.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

15. The similar issue has already been considered by this court in

Writ Appeal No.1218 of 2024 decided on 09.12.2025 titled as Rajendra

Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others and it was held that it is an

admitted fact that the appellant does not possess the caste certificate of OBC,

6 WA-39-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11444

therefore, there is no declaration by any law that he belongs to the OBC

Category. The self-declaration of caste is not sufficient to contest the

election. That order has been challenged in SLP No.37020 of 2025 before

the Apex Court, that SLP was dismissed with observation that we are not

inclined to interfere the impugned judgement. therefore, the view of this

Court is confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

16. Learned counsel of appellant heavily reliance the provision of 40

A of the M.P Panchayat Nirvachan NIyam 1995, that provision regarding the

stay on election in certain cases, it means that provision inserted only for

expedite the election proceeding not for the relaxation to prove the caste, if

any dispute arose and matter came before the court. Therefore, that ground is

not acceptable.

17. The M.P. Election Commission issued a letter dated 27.05.2022

and issued a direction that a candidate contesting from a reserved seat for the

three-tier Panchayat Raj Institutions will be required to attach a caste

certificate in the prescribed format issued by the competent authority of the

Madhya Pradesh Government along with the nomination paper. If the

candidate does not have a caste certificate at the time of filing the

nomination paper, he/she will have to submit an affidavit regarding his/her

caste belonging to the category for which the seat is reserved, before the

Returning Officer, before the scrutiny of nomination papers begins. In case

of not submitting the caste certificate issued by the competent authority of

the Madhya Pradesh Government or not submitting the affidavit regarding

being a member of the reserved category, the candidate's nomination paper

7 WA-39-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11444

will be cancelled. That letter itself makes it clear that the caste certificate is

mandatory for nomination for a reserved seat, but the only relaxation is that

if the candidate does not possess a caste certificate at the time of nomination,

then an affidavit is sufficient, and the Election Commission has no power to

inquire into the matter relating to the caste of the candidate. That fact also

gets clear that on that ground the election would not be stayed. The above

provision is only for conducting uninterrupted elections and not for

relaxation for filing the caste certificate.

18. Petitioner heavily reliance section 18 of the M.P Panchayat

Nirvachan Niyam 1995 regarding the Commission's power to issue General

or Special orders or directions, which is reproduce here-

Rule - 18 Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the

Commission may issue such special or general orders or directions which

may not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act for fair and free

elections.

19. Learned counsel pointed out that under that provision, the Election

Commission has given relaxation to file the caste certificate. We are not

satisfied with the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

Commission has no power to make any rule inconsistent with the provisions

of the Act. On a reading of the directions issued by the Election

Commission, it was never intended to relax the rule for filing the caste

certificate forever, it has been relaxed only for filing of the nomination and

till the conduct of the election, so as to avoid delay in conducting the

election. On the above policy, it is also clear that the Election Officer will not

8 WA-39-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11444

inquire into the caste of the candidate if an affidavit is filed with the

nomination form. It means the Election Commission wants to conduct the

election within the prescribed period and no one is deprived on the ground

that he has no caste certificate at the time of election.

20. The intention of the legislature behind the rule 40A of the M.P.

Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 is to protect the right of candidates

belonging to the reserved category to contest election proceedings without

interruption or delay. Mere non-submission of a caste certificate does not

deprive a reserved category candidate of the right to submit a nomination

form during the election process. For this purpose, the Election Officer shall

not inquire into the caste of the candidate, nor shall the election proceedings

be stayed on that ground. The above provision does not grant relaxation from

filing a caste certificate along with the nomination form. It only provides

time to submit the caste certificate later, if required, at the stage when the

candidate’s caste is challenged by any other candidate or voter.

21. The petitioner has also argued contending that the election

petition was decided without framing issues and without granting an

opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. That argument is also not

acceptable because the petitioner does not possess a caste certificate till now.

The Election Officer does not have the power to decide the caste of the

petitioner, caste can only be proved by a caste certificate. Hence, on the

ground that the election petition was decided without framing issues and

without granting an opportunity, the argument is not acceptable. The

petitioner wants to prolong the period till the completion of the tenure to

9 WA-39-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11444

fulfilment of his desire, he wants to remand the petition on this ground that

the issues could not be framed.

22. Rule 40A of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 has been

relied upon heavily by the appellant, which is reproduced below:-

"40A. [ Stay on elections in certain cases. [Inserted by Notification No. F.1-40-95-XXII-P-2, dated 17-2-

1999.]

(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if it comes lo the notice of the Returning Officer at

any time prior to the date of poll that the nomination of any candidate who, prima facie, does not belong

to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class, has been accepted for a seat which is

reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes as the case may be, through

oversight or want of objection or for any other reason, he shall forthwith issue a notice to such

candidate, asking him to file an affidavit that he belongs to the category for which the seat is reserved.

(2)In case the candidate concerned files an affidavit, the Returning Officer shall make no further inquiry

into the matter and treat the nomination as valid.(3)In case the concerned candidate fails to file an

affidavit on or before the date specified in the notice, it shall be presumed that he does not belong to the

category for which the seat is reserved and the Returning Officer shall report full facts to the following

competent authority, as the case may he and seek its permission to review his own order, regarding the

validity of the nomination, namely :-(i)Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) in case of election of a Panch

or Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat;(ii)Collector in case of election of a member of Janpad Panchayat;

and(iii)Divisional Commissioner in case of a member of Zila Panchayat.(4)The Competent Authority,

shall immediately, dispose off every case referred to it under sub-rule (3), and communicate its order to

the Returning Officer, as soon as possible.(5)After receiving the permission of the Competent Authority,

the Returning Officer, may review his own order and exclude the name of the concerned candidate from

the list of validly nominated candidates prepared under Rule 35 and from the list of contesting

candidates, if such list has already been prepared and published the Returning Officer shall prepare a

revised list of contesting candidates and publish it in accordance with the provisions of Rule 40

:Provided that if the concerned candidate has in the meanwhile submitted an affidavit in response of the

notice issued under sub-rule (1), the Returning Officer shall not review his order.(6)If the Competent

Authority fails to dispose off the case referred to it under sub-rule (3) at least five days before the day of

poll or the mistake in acceptance of nomination as specified in sub-rule (1), comes to the notice of the

Returning Officer on a day where-after a period of less than seven days is left for the day of poll, the

Returning Officer shall postpone the election of such scat and report the matter to the Commission

through the District Election Officer.(7)The Commission shall, after satisfying itself that the Returning

Officer has duly reviewed his order, issue revised time schedule for completion of election for the seat in

question."

23. On a careful reading of the said provision, it is clear that Rule

40A has been incorporated with the object of ensuring that the election

process is not stalled or delayed merely on account of a dispute relating to

caste at the stage of scrutiny of nomination papers. The provision enables the

Returning Officer to proceed with the election process on the basis of an

affidavit, without entering into an enquiry regarding the caste of the

10 WA-39-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11444

candidate. However, Rule 40A does not dispense with the statutory

requirement of establishing caste status in accordance with law, nor does it

grant a permanent exemption from producing a caste certificate. The

provision merely postpones such verification to a later stage, if required, and

is intended only to facilitate uninterrupted conduct of elections. Therefore,

Rule 40A cannot be interpreted to mean that a candidate can successfully

contest and continue to hold a reserved seat without possessing a valid caste

certificate issued by the competent authority.

24. In case of Kalka Vs. Ramji Lal (2002) 3 MPLJ 124

<>

it has been

that trial of an election petition is like a civil trial and framing of issues and

<>

recording of evidence are necessary for the proper adjudication of the

<>

dispute.

<>

25. There is no quarrel with the settled proposition of law that an

election petition is to be tried like a civil suit and that framing of issues and

recording of evidence is generally necessary where disputed questions of fact

arise. However, in the present case, the said judgments are not acceptable

and are clearly distinguishable on facts. It is an admitted position that the

appellant does not possess a caste certificate of Scheduled Caste even till

date. In the absence of a valid caste certificate, the caste status of the

appellant cannot be established in the eyes of law, and no amount of oral or

documentary evidence can substitute the statutory requirement of a caste

certificate issued by the competent authority. Since the appellant lacks the

basic qualification to contest a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste, no triable

issue survives for adjudication. Therefore, the contention regarding non-

11 WA-39-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11444

(VIVEK RUSIA)

<>

JUDGE

<>

(PRADEEP MITTAL)

<>

JUDGE

<>

framing of issues and denial of opportunity to lead evidence does not merit

acceptance and does not vitiate the proceedings.

26. We have considered all grounds taken in the appeal and the law

cited with the writ appeal. It is an admitted fact that the appellant does not

possess the caste certificate of Scheduled Caste, therefore, there is no

declaration by any law that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. The

self-declaration of caste is not sufficient to contest the election.

27. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with

the order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court

in W.P. No. 29557/2023. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed as being

devoid of merit.

Praveen

12 WA-39-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11444