IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7338 of 2011 BINOD SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . For the Petitioner:- Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha & Mr. Kamal Kishore Jha, Advocates For the State:- Mr. Rajiv Roy, G.P.-5 & Mr. Basant Kr. Singh, A.C. to G.P.-5 For the State Election Commission:- Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate ----------- 03. 10.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the State Election Commission. The petitioner filed nomination for the post of Mukhiya, Gangata Panchayat, Haveli Kharagpur, District-Munger in the Most Backward Class claiming to belong to the Pahira Caste, a Most Backward Class (Annexure-1). It is his case that on scrutiny his nomination was found valid and his name figured at serial no.8 of Form no.7 consisting of valid nominations. On 16.4.2011 he learnt through a newspaper publication that his nomination had been rejected on the ground of submission of a wrong Caste certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner from the order dated 9.4.2011 rejecting his nomination submits that the enquiry for cancellation of the Caste certificate has been done on 10.4.2011, as informed by the Block Development Officer and the Returning Officer on 2 11.4.2011, but the nomination has been rejected prior to the same. It is next submitted that the petitioner obtained a valid Caste certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer, the Circle Officer and the District Magistrate of his Caste status as Pahira. The alleged order of cancellation dated 30.3.2011 urged on behalf of the respondents is ex-parte in nature that he was never given an opportunity to show cause before cancellation which was never served upon him also. Learned counsel for the State submits that earlier the petitioner was granted Caste certificate as Pargha/Ghatwar Caste an O.B.C. in Annexure-2 on 18.3.2006. It was interpolated by him to read as Pahira. He filed his nomination for the post of Mukhiya in the Gangata Gram Panchayat on 20.6.2006 as such. His own relative who was also his proposer during the enquiry submitted that he did not know the caste of the petitioner. The Caste certificate issued in 2006 was then cancelled and his nomination rejected which the petitioner never challenged. The petitioner again managed to procure fresh Caste certificate” (this naturally has reference to the fresh Caste certificate as Pahira obtained by the petitioner on 20.11.2009, 26.11.2010, 21.04.2010 and other similar certificates). When these facts surfaced, the Caste certificate has been 3 cancelled on 30.03.2010 which was duly attempted to be served upon him and upon refusal of acceptance was pasted on his house. Learned counsel for the Commission submitted that they have acted on the report of the authorities with regard to the cancellation of the subsequent Caste certificate. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the state. The Court shall steer clear of any controversial or disputed facts while adjudicating this writ petition. The fact that the petitioner filed his nomination in the year 2006 is not denied by him. The fact that his relative Jagarnath Singh was his proposer and in an enquiry made certain declarations is also not denied by the petitioner in paragraph 5 of his rejoinder. A bald denial has been made for any interpolations by him but simultaneously he does not deny that he never questioned the cancellation of his nomination in the year 2006 on the ground of having made interpolations in the caste certificate. It is reiterated that he has not procured any fresh Caste certificate, but it has been granted to him after due enquiry by the concerned authorities. Likewise, 4 it has been denied that the cancellation order dated 30.3.2011 was sought to be served upon him. The respondents have made certain allegations against the petitioner with regard to his conduct in context of his Caste certificate alleging interpolations leading to rejection of his nomination in 2006. The petitioner acknowledges having accepted the same without challenge. But conversely, he has fresh Caste certificate in his favour issued on 20.11.2009. When the authorities issued a caste certificate a presumption arises that due enquiries were made. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is more than satisfied that both the petitioner and the State respondents have a lot to answer for their individual conduct. If the petitioner was issued a Caste certificate as Pargha/Ghatwar in 2006 and he interpolated it to read as Pahira leading to the rejection of his nomination, what kind of enquiry was made when the fresh Caste certificate was issued on 20.11.2009. If it was issued afresh in 2009, why did the respondents not take adequate steps for serving a show cause notice on him before cancellation. Even, if the petitioner was refusing to accept the same, the State had enough resources at its disposal at least to send it to him by registered post. The Court finds it difficult to grant any relief 5 to the petitioner, but the Court is fully satisfied that the present is a matter serious enough which certainly calls for a responsible investigation and consequential action both under the civil and criminal laws of the land as the case may be against the concerned. The Court directs the Commissioner of the State Election Commission to hold an enquiry into these facts. The Commissioner shall issue notice to the petitioner and all other concerned State authorities who issued the Caste certificate in 2006 then proceeded to cancel the same. Notice shall also be issued to all authorities who made enquiries and approved the grant of the Caste certificate on 20.11.2009 and other certificates connected with the same whether prior or subsequent including the cancellation order dated 30.3.2011. The Court requests the Commissioner to complete this enquiry within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. It is further expected that the enquiry report shall not be an exercise of futility, but shall be followed by necessary consequential action by the Commissioner himself. The writ application is dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)