IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

<>

ON THE 19

<>

th

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

WRIT PETITION No. 18926 of 2024

<>

KHUSHBU BISEN

<>

Versus

AASU AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Pravesh Naveriya - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Nitesh Kumar Jain - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi - Govt. Advocate for respondent

No.5/Collector.

ORDER

<>

This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 18.12.2023

(Annexure P/7) passed by the respondent No.5-Collector District Balaghat

(M.P.) whereby the election petition preferred by the petitioner under Section

122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam,

1993 against the respondent No.1 was rejected.

2.It is a case of the petitioner that she contested elections and was duly

appointed on the post of Member of Janpad Panchayat, No.20 Vikas Khand

Khairlanjhi District Balaghat. The Respondent No.1 also contested elections

for the post of Member of Janpad Panchayat, No. 19, Vikas Khand

Khairlanjhi and was duly appointed on the post of Member of Janpad

Panchayat, No.19, Vikas Khand Khairlanjhi. It is submitted that amongst

1 WP-18926-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14868

Members of concerned Janpad Panchayat, for the post of President which has

been reserved for OBC women candidate; the petitioner being eligible

candidate submitted her candidature for the said post. The respondent No.1

was also elected on the post reserved for OBC women candidate, therefore,

she submitted her candidature for the post of President, Janpad Panchayat

Khairlanjhi. The petitioner got to know that respondent No.1 has not attested

her OBC caste certificate along with her candidature which is mandatory

requirement in terms of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Rules, 1995 which

was amended in the year 2019 and as per amended provisions, the

submission of caste certificate is made mandatory. The candidate who wishes

to contest the elections on the posts which are reserved for a particular

category then it would be mandatory for him to annex caste certificate issued

by the competent officer of Government of Madhya Pradesh. Attention is

invited to the amended Rules of 2019 which is placed on record as Annexure

P/3 and it is submitted that along with the nomination paper, the documents

which are required to be annexed are provided and Sl. No. 2 i.e. 'Enclosed

documents with nomination paper" clearly demonstrates that "copy of Caste

certificate issued by competent officer of Government of Madhya Pradesh in

case of a member of reserved category" is required to be submitted.

Attention is also drawn to the nomination paper submitted by respondent

No.1 in terms of Annexure P/2 and it is contended that no caste certificate is

submitted by the respondent No.1. Page 19 of the compilation shows that as

per Sl. No.2 of "आरP-त वग6 का सद7य होने कJ दशा म', मVय1देश शामन के स-म 1ािधकारh ,ारा

जारh जाित 1माण-पW कJ 1ित.", the respondent No.1 has mentioned "नहhं" and in Sl.

2 WP-18926-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14868

No. 6, it is mentioned that the caste certificate of OBC has been issued from

the State of Maharashtra and after marriage when she migrated to the State

of Madhya Pradesh and her husband belongs to OBC category, she also

belonged to that category. An affidavit to the aforesaid effect is submitted.

3.It is argued that the aforesaid aspect does not amount to submission of

caste certificate and does not fulfil the requirement in terms of the amended

Rules of 1995. The petitioner immediately filed an election petition under

Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993

and prayed that the respondent No.1 be declared as disqualified for the post

in question as the nomination form itself should have been rejected at the

threshold for want of necessary document. The learned Collector has not

considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and rejected the election

petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the affidavit as required in

terms of the Circular dated 05.12.2014 has been submitted by the respondent

No.1 despite the fact that after amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat

Nirvachan Niyam in the year 2019, it has become mandatory to produce the

caste certificate. Therefore, the order passed by the Collector is

unsustainable. To buttress the submissions, the petitioner's counsel has relied

upon the orders passed by this Court in the cases of (i) Richa vs Smt. Sushila

Singh and others : WP No. 8388 of 2023 decided on 27.06.2023 (ii) Smtl

Rashmi vs Smt. Bharti and others : WP No. 27091 of 2022 decided on

01.02.2023 and (iii) Brajesh Singh vs Ram Prasad Deharia : WP No. 29557

of 2023 decided on 28.12.2023. On these grounds, he has prayed for

quashment of the impugned order.

3 WP-18926-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14868

4.On notice being issued, separate replies have been filed by respondents

No.1 and 5. Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has submitted that at the

time of scrutiny of the nomination paper before the Returning Officer, no

objection was raised by the petitioner and after having lost the election, the

election petition was filed. The petitioner is estopped by her own conduct

from challenging the nomination of respondent No.1 on technical grounds.

He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Madras Institute of Development Studies vs K.

Sivasubramaniyan reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454. It is contended that the

petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy against the order

passed by the Collector. The petition filed directly before this Court is not

maintainable. The respondent No.1 has clearly disclosed that she belongs to

OBC category. She filed an affidavit to the aforesaid effect at the time of

filing of the nomination form. She possesses valid caste certificate issued

from District Nagpur (Maharashtra) clarifying that she belongs to 'Pinjara'

community which is notified as 'OBC' in the State of Maharashtra as well as

in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is contended that in terms of Clause 13(4)

of the M.P. State Election Commission's letter dated 27.05.2022, it is

expected from a candidate contesting from a reserved post for Three-tier

Panchayati Raj Institutions that they must attach a caste certificate issued by

the competent authority of the Madhya Pradesh Government in the

prescribed format along with the nomination paper. If the candidate does not

have the caste certificate available at the time of filing the nomination paper,

they must submit an affidavit to the aforesaid effect before the scrutiny of the

4 WP-18926-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14868

nomination paper begins. The respondent No. 1 duly submitted the affidavit

concerning her caste at the time of filing of nomination paper. Therefore, the

grounds taken by the petitioner in the election petition are not available to

her. Absence of caste certificate issued from State of Madhya Pradesh at the

time of filing of nomination is merely a procedural error and does not effect

the substantive eligibility of the respondent No.1, for which he has relied

upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolly

Chhanda vs Chairman, JEE reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779 wherein it is held

that the possession of qualification is substantive; proof is procedural.

Migration of respondent No.1 from the State of Maharashtra to the State of

Madhya Pradesh does not extinguish her OBC status. All these aspects were

rightly considered by learned Collector while dealing with the issue and

passed the impugned order which is just and proper. He has prayed for

dismissal of the writ petition.

5.Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5/Collector has filed a

separate reply. It is contended that the respondent No.1 has already submitted

an affidavit affirming her caste/category along with required documents and

the Returning Officer has no jurisdiction to consider the veracity of the

affidavit and to reject the nomination paper. He is required to accept it in

terms of Rule 40-A(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam

1995 for which he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case

of Smt. Vidhya Manjhi vs State of M.P. and others : WP No. 522 of 2015

decided on 12.02.2015 (Gwalior Bench) wherein Rule 40-A(2) of the M.P.

Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 was taken note of and it was categorically

5 WP-18926-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14868

अनु

4मांक

द7तावेजK के eववरण

संलsन

हाँ/नहhं

2

आरP-त वग6 का सद7य होने कJ दशा म', मVय1देश शामन के स-म 1ािधकारh ,ारा जारh जाित

1माण-पW कJ 1ित

नहhं

<>

6

अpय : अaयथc को महारा: शासन iडyटh कलेdटर नागपुर ,ारा जारh eपंजरा जाित 'अpय eपछड़ा वग6'

जाित 1माण पW ... अaयथc ,ारा eपंजरा जाित के संबंध म' वैवाiहक P7थित के संबंध म' शपथ

पW

held that the Returning Officer has no jurisdiction except to proceed once he

receives the affidavit along with nomination paper. Petitioner's contention

that OBC certificate issued by the State of Maharashtra is not valid in the

State of M.P. is untenable. Once an affidavit to the aforesaid effect is filed,

no inquiry is permissible or required to be carried out by the Returning

Officer. The Collector has considered the aforesaid aspect as well as the

Circular dated 05.12.2014 issued by the M.P. State Election Commission,

Bhopal and passed the impugned order rejecting the election petition filed by

the petitioner. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6.Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

7.The sole question which arises for consideration is, : "whether in

absence of a caste certificate issued by a competent authority of the

Government of Madhya Pradesh, the nomination paper filed by the

respondent No.1 was rightly accepted by the Returning Officer" ?

8.It is an admitted position that the respondent No.1 and petitioner

contested the elections in the year 2022 for the post of President, Janpad

Panchayat Khairlanjhi. Along with the nomination paper, the respondent

No.1 has not submitted the caste certificate. From document (Annexure P/2)

i.e. 'nomination paper' which is filled by the respondent No.1 under the

column of documents required along with the nomination paper, she has

furnished the information as under :

6 WP-18926-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14868

9. The language used in the nomination paper is clear which requires that a

caste certificate issued from the State of M.P. by the competent authority is

to be submitted by the candidate along with the nomination paper.

Admittedly, respondent No.1 has not submitted such certificate, rather she

has submitted affidavit wherein it is mentioned at Sl. No. 6 that she has a

caste certificate issued from the District Nagpur (Maharashtra) which shows

that she belongs to OBC category ('Pinjara' community) and after marriage,

she migrated to the State of Madhya Pradesh. She has given an affidavit on

02.06.2022 with respect to her caste wherein she has mentioned as under :

3. यह iक शपथकतc का पूव6 नाम यासिमन वlद शेख महबूब जाित eपंजारा

जpम7थान नागपुर महा. था तथा महा. रा3य मे शपथकतc को अpय eपछडा

वग6 का जाित 1माण पW जारh iकया गया था ।

4. यह iक शपथकतc ने गुनाराम बघेले जाित पंवार 7ाम Pझjरया तहसील

खैरलांजी Pजला बालाघाट से iहpदू jरित से eववाह iकया है तथा eववाह के बाद

उसका नाम आशु बधेले पित गुनाराम बघेले हो गया है। तथा इसी नाम से मुझे

जाना पहचाना जाता है। शपथकतc के पित गुनारामबधेले पंवार जाित के है जो

अpय eपछड़ा वग6 के अंतग6त म.1. के बालाघाट Pजले मे अिधसूिचत है।

10.From the perusal of the affidavit, it is apparently clear that no caste

certificate issued from State of Madhya Pradesh by the competent authority

was submitted by the respondent No.1 along with the nomination paper. The

Madhya Pradesh Gazette vide Annexure P/3 dated 01.02.2019 which was

made effective from the date of such notification contains "Details of

documents enclosed with the Nomination Paper, for which receipt is

provided to the candidate" wherein Sl. No. (2) which stipulates "copy of

caste certificate issued by competent officer of Government of Madhya

Pradesh in case of a member of reserved category" and it is to be enclosed

before scheduled date and time of scrutiny.

11.The requirement is of 'enclosure of caste certificate issued by the

7 WP-18926-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14868

competent officer of the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh in case of a member of a

reserved category' is specifically mentioned in the Form-4 'Nomination

Paper' which is quoted hereinabove. In the said amended notification, there is

no mentioning of submission of affidavit in lieu of caste certificate. The

affidavit/declaration is required in pursuance to information relating to

criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications as per

Rule 31(A) of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. Therefore, it is

apparently clear that no caste certificate issued by competent officer of

Government of M.P. is submitted by respondent No.1. From the perusal of

the impugned order, it is seen that the Collector while dealing with the

election petition has taken note of Notification issued by the M.P. State

Election Commission, Bhopal dated 05.12.2014. Admittedly, the election

took in the year 2022. By the time, the amended notification in the M.P.

Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 vide M.P. Gazette dated 01.02.2019 was

already published and was in force. Therefore, the said notification was

required to be considered by the Collector while dealing with the election

petition. There is no consideration of the said amended notification by the

Collector. On this ground alone, it can safely be said that the order passed by

the Collector is unsustainable because he has failed to consider the

subsequent amended notification dated 01.02.2019 pointing out the required

documents to be furnished along with the nomination paper.

12.The other arguments advanced before this Court is that the affidavit

submitted by respondent No.1 regarding her caste will be sufficient, is of no

help to her for the reason that she does not have any caste certificate issued

8 WP-18926-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14868

(VISHAL MISHRA)

<>

JUDGE

<>

by the competent officer of Govt. of M.P.. Neither in the nomination form

nor in the affidavit submitted by respondent No.1, she has mentioned that she

is in possession of the caste certificate issued by the competent officer of

Govt. of M.P. which shows that she belongs to OBC community. In absence

of any such assertion in the nomination paper or in the affidavit submitted

along with the nomination paper, the said aspect could not be considered by

the authorities. However, as this Court has already arrived at a conclusion

that the learned Collector has not considered the subsequent notification

dated 01.02.2019 which mandates submission of caste certificate in case of

reserved category candidates, therefore, the impugned order dated

18.12.2023 becomes unsustainable. The same is hereby quashed.

13.The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.5/Collector District

Balaghat for reconsideration of the election petition filed by petitioner and to

decide the same afresh in accordance with law taking note of the subsequent

amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam vide M.P.

Gazette dated 01.02.2019 as the same is applicable to the elections which

were held in the year 2022. It is made clear that the opportunity of hearing

shall be ensured to all concerned. The entire exercise be completed within a

period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

14.In above terms, petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs.

VV

9 WP-18926-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14868