Sheel Nagu, J.@mdashThis Writ Appeal u/s 2 of the Madhya Pradesh (Uchcha Nyayalaya Ki Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam assails the final order dated 21-3-2012 in W.P. No. 6378/2011 [2012 (4) M.P.H.T. 121], whereby while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has upheld the findings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee (''CSC'' for brevity), whereby the caste certificate of the petitioner/appellant has been cancelled and direction issued to take appropriate action. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that as per the appellant, his forefathers had migrated from Pakistan to India in 1947 and had settled down in Village Bandala at Amritsar in Punjab, where they lived for four years and, thereafter, shifted from Village Bandala to Village Marki Mahu at Guna in Madhya Pradesh on or about 1950. The appellant was born in Madhya Pradesh while his father was living in Village Marki Mahu at Guna in 1965. In his school record and other records of the Government, the appellant showed himself either a Sikh, Punjabi or Hindu and never represented himself as ''Sansi'', a caste recognised as Scheduled Caste both in Punjab and in Madhya Pradesh. A few months before declaration of election of Legislative Assembly in Guna in 2008, he made an application to the Tehsildar, Guna on 20th February, 2008 for grant of a provisional caste certificate to the effect that his caste was ''Sansi''. A provisional caste certificate was issued to him by Tehsildar Guna on 31-5-2008. The temporary caste certificate was issued to him on the basis of report of the Patwari of the concerned area in Guna and the report of the Tehsildar Amritsar, whose report in turn was based upon a Panchnama of the villagers of Village Bundela, Amritsar. Thereafter, the appellant on 3rd June, 2008 submitted an application in prescribed proforma for issuance of a permanent caste certificate and he was, accordingly, issued a permanent caste certificate by SDO, Guna on 8th August, 2008. On the strength of permanent caste certificate declaring the caste of the appellant to be ''Sansi'', a caste recognised as Scheduled Caste in Punjabi and in Madhya Pradesh, he contested election as Member of Legislative Assembly from Guna Constituency 029, a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste community in 2008, and won the election, The appellant is, thus, an elected Member of Legislative Assembly of Guna from a Reserved Constituency since 2008. After the election of the appellant, two persons namely, Smt. Sangeeta Mohan Rajak, who was one of the defeated candidates and respondent No. 3-Mr. Komal Prasad Shakya, made a complaint to the concerned authorities of the Government that the caste certificate issued to the appellant is forged and a manipulated one. On this complaint, the Commissioner, Tribal Development forwarded the matter regarding issuance of caste certificate dated 8th August, 2008, for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of directions of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of
2. The Learned Senior Counsel of the petitioner/appellant in support of the challenge to the impugned order has primarily raised the following contentions:-
(1) Neither the CSC nor the learned Single Judge has considered the various documents filed by the petitioner/appellant before the CSC, thereby vitiating the ultimate findings recorded against the petitioner/appellant due to non-application of mind.
(2) The petitioner/appellant was denied due and sufficient opportunity of defending his cause since the CSC, before which. 15 documents were filed on 10-8-2011, went ahead to render the impugned findings on the very same day, i.e., 10-8-2011.
(3) Once the reports of Vigilance Officers were in favour of the petitioner, there was no occasion or justification for the CSC to render a contrary finding especially when the factum of the Vigilance reports being procured, false or fraudulent was not established.
(4) While rendering the impugned findings, the CSC took into account irrelevant material and consideration while failing to consider the relevant ones.
(5) The findings of the CSC and as well as the impugned order are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
3. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel of the rival parties are heard and the material available on record of the present appeal and as well as of the writ petition has been perused by us.
4. Before considering the submissions of the learned Counsel of the rival parties, it would be appropriate to remind ourselves of the limitations and trappings, within which this Court exercises the power of writ appeal. While hearing an appeal against an order passed by the Single Bench in writ petition, the same limitations and constraints come into play, which attend the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The extent of judicial scrutiny of this Court is to ascertain whether the learned Single Judge has either failed to exercise the power of judicial review or has exceeded the same while rendering the impugned findings.
5. The learned Single Judge has confined his pursuit of judicial review to the dual aspects--(a) the process of decision making, and, (b) merits of the decision of the CSC.
As regards, contention numbers (1) & (2) (supra).
6. The Learned Senior Counsel of the petitioner/appellant has contended that sufficient cogent material was placed by the petitioner/appellant before the CSC to establish on a prima facie basis the claim of the petitioner/appellant of belonging to the "Sansi" Scheduled Caste, which is notified at serial No. 45 of Part IX pertaining to Madhya Pradesh in the Schedule appended to the Constitution (Schedule Castes) Order, 1950.
7. The learned Senior Counsel of the appellant has taken this Court through the 15 documents filed by petitioner/appellant before CSC, list of which finds mention at Page 64 of the appeal paper book, which are as follows:-
(1) Certificate of Gram Panchayat/Counselor.
(2) Certificate of Patwari.
(3) Certificate of Gazetted Officer.
(4) Affidavit of petitioner/appellant in the prescribed proforma.
(5) The affidavit of petitioner/appellant affixed with stamp.
(6) Certificate of Smt. Kiran, Municipal of Ward No. 16, Municipal Council, Guna.
(7) Certificate dated 30-1-2008 of Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha.
(8) Affidavit of Shri Amrik Singh, dated 28-6-2008 (father of the petitioner/appellant).
(9) Affidavit dated 28-6-2008 of Gayadhar Prasad of Gram Marki Mau.
(10) Bhu-adhikar Pustika of petitioner/appellant.
(11) Domicile certificate of petitioner/appellant.
(12) Ration card of petitioner/appellant.
(13) Application dated 1972 of Shri Amrik Singh (father of the appellant) for grant of permanent lease over land situated in Gram Mohan Pur.
(14) Order sheet in case No. 150-A-19/1972-73 of the Court of Tehsildar Pragna. Raghogarh.
(15) Permanent lease issued in favour of the bank of the petitioner/appellant over survey No. 39/42, Patwari Halka No. 4 in Gram Mohan Pur.
8. The learned Single Judge has considered the import and impact of all the above 15 documents and also other school records including the application preferred by the father of the applicant for grant of permanent lease (Patta) in 1972 to come to the impugned conclusion. The learned Single Judge further found that none of the school related documents reflect the caste of the petitioner/appellant as "Sansi" and thus, came to the conclusion that the mention of term "Sansi" in the application of 1972 is inconsequential and of no avail to the petitioner/appellant as it is based on self serving statements, which cannot be relied upon by the petitioner/appellant especially in the background of the failure of the petitioner/appellant to mention his caste as "Sansi" in any other his academic or any other official record.
9. This Court is of the considered view that the Single Bench did not commit any illegality in arriving at the said findings. The consistent behaviour of the petitioner/appellant and his ancestors of not disclosing their caste to be "Sansi" for at least more than 42 long years raises an adverse inference against them that they never faced the social and financial disadvantage and discrimination, which a member of SC is subjected to. The benefit of reservation is meant exclusively for the disadvantaged to enable them to join the main-stream to achieve the ultimate constitutional goal of equality. The learned Single Judge has, thus, rightly drawn the necessary inference against the petitioner/appellant that it was only for the purpose of contesting elections that the petitioner/appellant contrived to clothe himself in the garb of the protection available to a member of Scheduled Caste community.
10. Perusal of the-findings of the CSC and also of the learned Single Judge, disclose due application of mind to all the relevant documents before arriving at the findings against the petitioner/appellant. At first blush, the above said arguments of the learned Senior Counsel of the appellant of denial of opportunity appears to be attractive as it ostensibly demonstrates non-application of mind on the part of CSC. This Court is conscious of the settled law that merely alleging denial of opportunity without further establishing prejudice can be of no avail. The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/appellant has not been able to point out any prejudice that was caused to the petitioner/appellant as the documents, which the learned Counsel of the petitioner/appellant contends to have been filed on 10-8-2011, could have persuaded the CSC to have taken a contrary view. Therefore, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
As regards contention No. 3 (supra).
11. To consider this submission, we have gone through the decision in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), whereby for the first time the Apex Court in the absence of any statutory provision to govern the field of issuance of SC/ST certificate and procedure for verifying the same, laid down the law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India providing for a detailed procedure inter alia for testing the veracity and genuineness of the SC certificate by CSC. Pertinently, the Apex Court in the said decision of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), in Paragraph 13, provided that against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in writ petition assailing the findings of CSC, the remedy would be of an appeal to the Apex Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, but the said directives were subsequently deleted by the decision in the case of
12. From perusal of the detailed procedure laid down in the decision of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), it is crystal clear that great emphasis has been attached to the report of the Vigilance Officer in clause (5) of Para 13. The Vigilance Officer has been mandated not only to visit the place of local resident, but also the original place from which the candidate hails but also to personally collect all facts regarding social status of the candidate or his parents by examining the social records and the birth registration and also to examine parents, relatives and such other person, who are in possession of knowledge of social status of the candidate. The Apex Court has also made it obligatory for the Vigilance Officer to collect information about the anthropological and ethnological traits of the candidate and information regarding deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremony and method of burial of dead bodies, prevalent among the members of the caste concerned.
13. On the other hand, clause (7) of Para 13 of the said decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), provides that in case the report of Vigilance Officer is in favour of the candidate no further action is to be taken unless the report is found to be procured false or fraudulently obtained.
14. From the conjoint reading of clauses (5) and (7) of Para 13, with the aid of harmonious construction, it is evident that the mandate in clause (7) treating the favourable report of Vigilance Officer to be final and binding, presupposes the Vigilance Officer to conduct the inquiry strictly in terms of clause (5), failing which the findings of the Vigilance Officer, even if found favourable would fall foul of the second part of clause (7) and would render the favourable report to be procured false or fraudulent.
15. Testing the findings of the learned Single Judge on the anvil of the above said harmonious construction of clauses (5) and (7) of Para 13 of the decision in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), this Court is of the considered view that no fault can be found with the impugned order for the obvious reason that the material, which was made available by the petitioner/appellant was insufficient to establish the claim of the petitioner/appellant of belonging to "Sansi" Scheduled Caste Community. Moreover, the Vigilance Officers failed to record the statements of any of the relatives of the petitioner/appellant or collected any official documents demonstrating that any of the relatives ever claimed or propagated themselves to be belonging to "Sansi" Scheduled Caste Community. The Vigilance Officer further did not gather any information as regards social status of the petitioner/appellant. The anthropological and ethnological traits were also not traced by the Vigilance Officer. Thus, it is evident that the Vigilance Officers while conducting the inquiry failed to follow the procedure laid down in clause (5) of Para 13, which necessarily rendered both the reports to be false thereby falling within one of the three exceptions categorized in clause (7) of Para 13.
16. The question as to whether the favourable reports of Vigilance Officers were procured or vitiated by fraud need not be gone into by this Court in view of the findings of the report being false having already arrived at. Accordingly, the CSC and the learned Single Judge have rightly disbelieved the favourable reports of the Vigilance Officers.
As regards contention No. 4 (supra).
17. This Court now embarks upon the exercise to ascertain as to whether the learned Single Judge has exercised its power of judicial review within the recognized limitations. The learned Single Judge in Paragraph 4 of the impugned order has articulated the attack made by the petitioner/appellant to the findings of the CSC into dual components, i.e., decision making process and the merits of the decision. In the decision making process, the learned Single Judge considered the ground of the improper composition of the CSC and the alleged vitiation of finding of CSC on that count. The other aspect under the decision making process, which the learned Single Judge has considered is the aspect of the favourable reports of the Vigilance Officers having been disbelieved by the CSC. Pertinently, findings rendered by the learned Single Judge in regard to improper composition of the CSC has not been raised by the learned Counsel of the appellant before us in the present writ appeal, but to do complete justice, the said findings in regard to constitution of committee deserve consideration. Improper composition of CSC was alleged before teamed Single Judge due to alleged non-presence of expert in the field of Scheduled Caste, whose presence is mandated in the decision of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), in Para 13 (4), which inter alia provides presence of an officer having intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of social status certificates. The learned Single Judge in Paras 5, 6 and 19 in the impugned judgment has dealt with this issue in detail and has repelled the attack on the composition of committee on the ground that pursuant to the instruction issued by the State Government in circular dated 4-11-1999, the Director, Tribal Research Institute was nominated as the expert member in the field of SC, who cannot be presumed to be wanting in expertise in the subject of SC merely because of being Director of Tribal Research Institute unless otherwise is proved. The learned Single Judge has further found that since no material or evidence was produced to establish the Director, Tribal Research Institute to be not an expert in the field of SC, the ground of defective composition of committee was of no avail to the petitioner/appellant. We do not find any illegality, impropriety or unreasonableness in the said Findings of the learned Single Judge as the petitioner/appellant was required to establish the alleged incompetence of the committee, which he failed to do and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in rendering the said findings.
18. As regards the other aspects under the decision making process of the favourable report of Vigilance Officer not having been believed by CSC, this Court has already considered the matter (supra), and does not intent dwelling into it any further. The other ground of attack raised by the petitioner/appellant before the Writ Court was in regard to the merits of the decision of the CSC.
19. This Court is conscious of the fact that the power of judicial review under Article 226 is to be favourably exercised when the petitioner/appellant establishes vitiation of the decision making process. The merits of the decision taken by an Administrative Authority cannot be questioned unless the same are perverse or against the Wednesbury''s Principle. The learned Single Judge has minutely scrutinized the decision making process undertaken by the CSC before recording the impugned findings against the petitioner/appellant and has found that the said process was not vitiated as neither the petitioner/appellant was denied reasonable opportunity nor was he prejudiced. The ground of denial of opportunity vehemently canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel of the petitioner/appellant is of no avail to the petitioner/appellant in the absence of the petitioner/appellant establishing any prejudice.
20. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the 15 documents filed by the petitioner/appellant on 10-8-2011 were not taken into account since the findings were rendered by the CSC on the very same day, even then when this Court gave opportunity to the Counsel for the petitioner/appellant to establish the prejudice on account of said alleged denial of opportunity, the Counsel was unable to point out any material indicating prejudice. Moreover, all the documents including two school certificates have been perused by this Court, and this Court has no manner of doubt that in none of these documents, the caste of the petitioner/appellant has been shown to be "Sansi". Moreover, there is no occasion for doubting the veracity of these academic documents furnished by the petitioner/appellant. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has affirmed the impugned findings of the CSC by not only scrutinizing the decision making process but also by assessing the merits of the decision itself on the anvil of the documentary evidence made available by the petitioner/appellant on record. The learned Single Judge has properly exercised the power of judicial review under Article 226 without making any trespass into the prohibitive zone. All the relevant materials and evidence placed, on record have been considered by the CSC, after excluding the irrelevant material while exercising the power of judicial review.
As regards contention No. 5 (supra).
21. This Court may not dwell into this aspect in view of the discussion made above, which amply demonstrates that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), was not followed by the Vigilance Officers while rendering both their favourable reports and, therefore, the CSC and as well as the learned Single Judge have rightly disbelieved the said reports, to come to an independent finding contrary to the findings of the Vigilance Officers. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the passing of the impugned order"
22. Before parting, this Court deems it appropriate to dwell into an important aspect of the matter, which deserves consideration. The concept of conferment of SC/ST status upon a particular individual stems out of the mandate of Article 341 of Constitution of India, which empowers the President of India to specify the caste, race or tribes or parts or groups thereof, by way of notification published in the Official Gazette in relation to each State. The inclusion of a particular caste in the said notification issued under Article 341 necessarily bestows privileges, concessions and rights provided for such castes in the Constitution of India. The conferment of this privilege upon a particular person by virtue of his belonging to a notified Scheduled Caste carries with it, the ever present danger of undeserving persons taking undue advantage of the privilege, concessions and rights actually meant for the deserving.
23. To prevent the undeserving from misusing the concessions privileges and rights, the Apex Court in the absence of any statute in that regard was impelled to lay down the law under Article 141 while rendering the judgment in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra). The State of M.P. has subsequently, issued various executive instructions in line with the law laid down by the Apex Court. The entire exercise of laying down the law was undertaken by the Apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), to achieve the ultimate goal of preventing the undeserving from taking undue advantage of the privileges, concessions and special rights conferred by the Constitution inter alia for the benefit of genuine members of the Scheduled Castes. The Supreme Court, thereafter, has time and again reiterated the above said avowed object and has come down heavily upon any instance of misuse of this privilege by undeserving persons.
24. In view of the above, it is obvious that to ensure prevention of abuse of privileges by undeserving persons, the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), deserves to be strictly construed to prohibit the undeserving from encroaching into the territory of reservation meant exclusively for the under-privileged deserving persons. Any misadventure of liberal construction of the procedure laid down for conduction of enquiry as contemplated by Clauses (5) and (7) in Para 13 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), would not only defeat the very purpose behind the decision, but will also be abhorrent to the constitutional mandate. The instances of misuse of the privileges reserved by the Constitution for the under-privileged persons, are on the rise and have assumed monstrous proportions to the extent of usurping privileges meant exclusively for the deserving under-privileged. Thus, the need of the hour is, to deal with such undeserving persons with heavy hands.
25. The judicial pronouncement cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant do not support the case of the appellant. The decision in the case of Anand (supra), categorically provides in Paragraph 23, which is reproduced below:--
Needless to add that the burden of proving the caste claim is upon the applicant. He has to produce all the requisite documents in support of his claim. The Caste Scrutiny Committee merely performs the role of verification of the claim and, therefore, can only scrutinise the documents and material produced by the applicant. In case the material produced by the applicant does not prove his claim, the Committee cannot gather evidence on its own to prove or disprove his claim.
26. Thus, view of the above mentioned decision of the Apex Court, the law is well settled that onus of proving the fact of the candidate belonging to a particular Scheduled Caste lies heavily on the candidate concerned and the task of the CSC is limited to verification of genuineness and authenticity of the documents and material furnished in support of the claim. Therefore, unless the candidate concerned discharges this burden, which lies heavily upon him, by prima facie establishing his claim, any further exercise on the part of the CSC to verify the claim of the candidate would be an exercise in futility, whereas once the claim of belonging to a particular SC community is prima facie established by the candidate, the burden then shifts upon the complainant doubting the claim of the candidate, to prove otherwise. So far as the other case of Sayana (supra), is concerned, it is seen that the Apex Court was faced with the facts situation, where the candidate concerned had produced ample material in shape of school records showing the candidate belonging to a particular tribe. Thus, this decision too is of no avail to the petitioner/appellant, as in the instant case, no such document has been produced by the petitioner/appellant. The third case of Gayatrilaxmi (supra), is also distinguishable on facts as in the said case, the candidate concerned had established his claim of belonging to a particular tribe by producing sample material in support thereof.
27. It is pertinent to observe that the above said initial burden to prove the claim of the petitioner/appellant at least on a prima facie basis has not been discharged by the petitioner/appellant. The documents furnished by the petitioner/appellant in support of his claim, do not indicate even on a prima facie basis that he belongs to the "Sansi" SC community. The petitioner/appellant also cannot derive any advantage from the weakness of the case of the complainant. He has to stand on his own legs to establish his claim of belonging "Sansi" SC community. The petitioner/appellant in our opinion has miserably failed to establish his claim even on prima facie basis and, therefore, his Caste Certificate was rightly ordered to be cancelled by the CSC.
28. The petitioner/appellant has failed to establish that he or any of his family members ever faced any disadvantage or discrimination in the society on account of belonging to "Sansi" community. The very conferment of the status of SC/ST is based upon the prerequisite of the person concerned being subjected to disadvantage and discriminative atmosphere in the society, which is missing in the case of the petitioner. It is obvious that the conferment of SC status upon the petitioner/appellant by issuance of provisional certificate was unlawful. The conduct of the petitioner/appellant further indicates that the caste certificate was sought merely to contest election from reserved constituency. By doing so, the petitioner/appellant has denied the rightful claim of a genuine SC candidate from contesting elections and being elected from the said constituency reserved for SC. The said conduct of the petitioner/appellant is not only unlawful, unwarranted but also unconstitutional.
29. In the conspectus of above said discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the order impugned of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety or unreasonableness and, therefore, deserves to be upheld.
30. Since, this Court has come to the finding that the petitioner/appellant has usurped the privilege and concession without being entitled for it, and in the process has denied the deserving under-privileged person front availing the concession, this writ appeal deserves to be dismissed with cost, which is quantified at Rs. 50,000/-. The cost to be deposited by the appellant shall be appropriated amongst the M.P. High Court Legal Aid Section and High Court Bar Association, Gwalior in equal proportion.
31. Accordingly, this writ appeal stands dismissed with costs as quantified above.
S.N. Aggarwal, J.
32. I have had the advantage of a joyous reading of a painstaking script of the judgment prepared by brother Justice Nagu. I fully agree and endorse the reasonings and the conclusion given in the judgment. I only would like to further reinforce the conclusion that none of the documents submitted by the appellant before the Caste Scrutiny Committee proves his social status that he belongs to a ''Sansi'' caste (a caste recognised as Scheduled Caste both in Punjab and in Madhya Pradesh), I am adding this passage after due and proper consultation and after obtaining telephonic consent from my Bench partner Justice Nagu.
33. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of his contention that the appellant belongs to a ''Sansi'' caste has relied upon certain documents, which were part of record of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and they are as follows:-
(i) Affidavits of the appellant himself and of his father Shri Amrik Singh.
(ii) Copy of the application submitted by his father in 1972 for grant of a permanent patta of agricultural land.
(iii) Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporator of Ward No. 16, Guna and also the certificate issued by Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha at Guna.
(iv) Panchnama of villagers of Village Bandala, Amritsar.
(v) Report of the Patwari of the concerned area in Guna as also the report of Tehsildar, Amritsar.
(vi) Reports by two Vigilance Officers in favour of the appellant.
34. We have carefully scanned and bestowed our thoughtful consideration to all the above noted documents, but the same when tested on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in various judgments do not establish the claim of the appellant that he belongs to a ''Sansi'' caste. All the above documents, on which reliance is placed on behalf of the appellant, have to be viewed in the light of his reply given by him to the show-cause notice before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, in which, he himself has admitted that he never disclosed his caste as ''Sansi'' to anyone in the past and if it was so, we wonder how the villagers or for that matter even the Municipal Corporator or Gurudwara. Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Guna could issue certificate of caste to the appellant. They, in our opinion, were not competent to issue caste certificate to the appellant and the certificates issued by them are, thus, of no legal consequence. We are further of the view that the caste of a person cannot be determined on the basis of his self-serving statement contained in his affidavit or the affidavit filed by his father. The application submitted by the father of the appellant to the Revenue Authority in 1972 for grant of permanent patta of agricultural land, where he has described himself as a ''Punjabi Sansi'' is also of no legal consequence. We may note that the caste of the appellant or his father was not in issue in 1972, when he applied for grant of permanent patta and this was so admitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on his behalf. We may note that the document of patta granted in favour of appellant''s father in 1972 does not contain the caste of the appellant as ''Sansi'' and he is described therein, merely as a ''Sikh''. The reports of the Patwari of Guna and Tehsildar al Amritsar and of the Vigilance Officers are also of no legal consequence as they are simply based on the statement of the villagers, certificates issued to the appellant by the Municipal Corporator and Gurudwara, Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Guna. We have already noted herein above that the villagers could not have made a statement regarding caste of the appellant when as per own admission of the appellant himself he never disclosed them about his caste in the past. We may note that the Vigilance Officers during their enquiry did not collect any additional information except relying upon the reports of the Patwari, Guna and Tehsildar at Amritsar and the documents, which we have already discussed hereto above. Hence, in our view, the report of the Vigilance Officers, though in favour of the appellant, was rightly not accepted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee for cogent reasons given by the Committee in its order dated 10th August, 2011. We, further find from the record that the respondent No. 3 had also placed reliance before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the entries contained in the school admission register, where caste of the appellant as ''Sansi'' is not mentioned. In the APL/BPL card obtained by the appellant in 2007, he had declared himself as belonging to ''General Category'' and not to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category. The copy of ration card of the appellant in this regard where he has declared himself as belonging to the ''General Category'' is at Page 243 of the appeal paper book. After the appellant has declared himself as a person belonging to the ''General Category'', then he in our opinion, is estopped from making a claim to the contrary only a few months, thereafter, that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste category (''Sansi'' caste). In all the above mentioned documents, that were placed for consideration before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, either by the appellant or by respondent No. 3, the appellant was described either as ''Sikh'' or ''Punjabi'', which is not a caste. The word ''Sikh'' implies the religion, while ''Punjabi'' is a term, which refers to the region one belongs. In other words, those who originally belong to Punjab are called ''Punjabis''. It is, thus, apparent that the appellant never disclosed his caste as ''Sansi'' in any document before any Public Authority for a long period of more than 42 years after his birth, till the time he applied for the first time in 2008 for obtaining a caste certificate with a malafide intention to gain an illegal mileage and deprive the genuine person of Scheduled Caste category from contesting the election from a reserved constituency. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any fault or illegality either in the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee or in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. This appeal accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs already quantified by my brother Judge.
