2005 (10) TMI 541 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellant was not qualified to contest from a constituency reserved for the scheduled tribes?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the judgment in E.P. 13 of 1983 operates as res judicata regarding the appellant's status.
2. Whether the judgment in E.P. 13 of 1983 is a judgment in rem.
3. The impact of the community certificate issued under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993.
4. Whether the appellant belongs to the "Konda Dora" tribe, a Scheduled Tribe.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the judgment in E.P. 13 of 1983 operates as res judicata regarding the appellant's status:
The appellant argued that the judgment in E.P. 13 of 1983 should operate as res judicata, thus barring the present election petition. However, the court held that the earlier adjudication did not operate as res judicata because the first respondent in the current petition was not a party to the prior election petition. The court emphasized that each election provides a fresh cause of action, and a prior election petition's adjudication cannot be conclusive in a subsequent proceeding. Therefore, the plea of res judicata raised by the appellant was not sustainable.

2. Whether the judgment in E.P. 13 of 1983 is a judgment in rem:
The appellant contended that the judgment in E.P. 13 of 1983 was a judgment in rem, binding on the whole world. The court rejected this argument, stating that an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, does not lead to an adjudication that declares or determines the status of a person in a manner that binds the world at large. The court concluded that the earlier judgment could not be considered a judgment in rem and did not preclude the current petitioner's challenge.

3. The impact of the community certificate issued under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993:
The appellant argued that the caste certificate issued under the Andhra Pradesh Act should be final and binding. However, the court found that the certificate was issued without proper inquiry and was based on the recommendation made on the same day as the application. The court noted that CW1, the official who issued the certificate, admitted it was done based on the previous judgment in E.P. 13 of 1983. Thus, the court discarded the certificate, finding it unreliable.

4. Whether the appellant belongs to the "Konda Dora" tribe, a Scheduled Tribe:
The trial court found that the appellant did not belong to the "Konda Dora" tribe based on the evidence presented. The court noted that the appellant and his family had consistently described themselves as 'Kshatriyas' in various documents, including school leaving certificates. The court held that these admissions were significant and not adequately rebutted by the appellant. The evidence indicated that the appellant's family did not follow the customs of the "Konda Dora" tribe, and there was no positive evidence to support the appellant's claim. The court concluded that the appellant was not eligible to contest from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribes.

Conclusion:
The court confirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reason to interfere with the judgment. The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the finding that the appellant did not belong to the "Konda Dora" tribe and was ineligible to contest the election from a reserved constituency.