Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 03.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Mohammad Salman (W.P. C No. 5555/2024) and Chandan Yadav (W.P. C No. 1808/2025). Both petitions arise from the same factual matrix concerning the election to the Councillor post of Ward 35, Sharda Para, Bhilai Municipal Corporation, Durg district.
  • Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh (through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration & Development and Division Commissioner, Durg), Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, and other intervenors.
  • Core dispute: Mohammad Salman was elected in the 2021 municipal election on the basis of a Social Status (OBC) Certificate claiming membership in the Kunjda caste. An objection was raised by Chandan Yadav and another private respondent alleging that the certificate was fraudulently obtained and never issued by the competent authority.
  • Procedural history:
  • The Division Commissioner, Durg, after hearing both sides, issued an order on 06‑May‑2024 removing Salman from the Councillor post under Section 19(1)(a‑1) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.
  • Salman appealed; the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 04‑Sep‑2024, affirming the removal.
  • Salman filed W.P. C No. 5555/2024 challenging both orders; Chandan Yadav filed W.P. C No. 1808/2025 seeking an oath‑taking ceremony and recognition of his own election after the vacancy arose.
  • The Court, on 19‑Feb‑2024, directed the Division Commissioner to decide the removal proceedings within a stipulated period. Subsequent interim relief was granted on 28‑Jan‑2025, staying the effect of the removal orders while the case was pending.
  • By‑election: The vacancy created by Salman’s removal was notified to the State Election Commission, which issued an election programme on 20‑Jan‑2025. Chandan Yadav filed his nomination on 02‑Dec‑2021 (original election) and again for the by‑election; the Returning Officer issued an election certificate on 31‑Jan‑2025 and the State Election Commission gazetted his election on 24‑Feb‑2025.
  • Key legal questions:

1. Whether the Division Commissioner had jurisdiction to examine the validity of the caste certificate and to remove a Councillor under Section 19(1)(a‑1).

2. Whether the matter required referral to the District‑Level Verification Committee or the High‑Power Caste‑Scrutiny Committee under the Chhattisgarh Social Status Certification Act, 2013.

3. Whether the interim order of 28‑Jan‑2025 barred the conduct of the by‑election or the oath‑taking of the newly elected Councillor.

  • Submissions:
  • Petitioner (Salman): argued that the Division Commissioner lacked jurisdiction, that the caste‑scrutiny mechanism should apply, and that the interim order restored his status, precluding any oath for Yadav.
  • Respondents (State & Municipal Corporation): contended that the Division Commissioner acted within statutory power, that the caste certificate was never issued (as confirmed by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Revenue, Durg), and that the by‑election was a separate statutory process.
  • Counsel for Yadav: emphasized the sanctity of the electoral process, the constitutional bar on court interference once an election is underway (Article 329), and that the interim order did not revive Salman’s office.

Final Outcome

  • W.P. C No. 5555/2024 (Salman): Dismissed. The Court held that the Division Commissioner correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 19(1)(a‑1) of the 1956 Act, that the caste certificate was demonstrably non‑existent, and that the findings of the Commissioner and the appellate authority were not perverse or unsupported.
  • W.P. C No. 1808/2025 (Yadav): Allowed. The Court affirmed that the by‑election conducted under the State Election Commission’s authority was valid, that Yadav’s election was lawful, and ordered the authorities to administer his oath‑taking as Councillor of Ward 35, Sharda Para, Bhilai.
  • Legal clarification: The judgment expressly states that when a caste certificate is found to have never been issued, the matter does not fall within the purview of the Caste‑Scrutiny Committee; the Divisional Commissioner may directly determine disqualification. Once the vacancy is created, the election process proceeds independently, and courts cannot interfere under Article 329/Article 226.
  • Costs: No order as to costs.

Topics: Legal Dispute – Municipal Election, Caste Certificate Validity