IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4742 of 2007 DINESH KUMAR SAH BHARTI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 13.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for respondent no. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that based on a valid caste certificate of 2001, he contested the election of the post of Mukhia as belonging to “KANU’ caste. Respondent no. 6 raised an issue with regard to the same. It is the case of the petitioner that the Executive Magistrate, Respondent no. 4, conducted a preliminary enquiry which led to a report dated 13.6.2006 which was in his favour. Without prevailing on this aspect, this Court considers it proper to note that both from the counter affidavit of the State-Respondents and Respondent no. 6, it is apparent that this report was certainly not prejudicial to the petitioner. Nonetheless, the same author who gave the report dated 13.6.2006 soon thereafter submitted a fresh report on 11.2.2007 that the petitioner had obtained a wrong caste certificate and that he belongs to the caste ‘Halwai’, which led to the impugned order cancelling his caste certificate on 1.6.2007 by the Additional Collector, Madhubani, a copy whereof has been brought on record at Annexure-F to the supplementary counter affidavit of Respondents 1 to 5, in pursuance of the instruction issued in that regard by the District Magistrate on15.5.2007. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the - 2 - impugned order dated 11.2.2007 has been passed behind his back and without hearing him or giving him opportunity to satisfy the authorities that he had been issued a valid caste certificate as belonging to ‘Kanu’ caste. The counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondents does not dispute the contention of the petitioner of denial of hearing. All that is stated is that an enquiry was held. Surely the petitioner was required to be noticed and heard in such enquiry. The enquiry report dated 11.2.2007, the order dated 15.5.2007 and 1.6.2007 are, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remanded back to Respondent no. 2 for fresh adjudication on the caste status of the petitioner in accordance with law after hearing all concerned including Respondent no. 6. Let such fresh adjudication be done and final orders passed thereupon within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before Respondent no. 2. In the event of non-cooperation either by the petitioner or Respondent no. 6, the authority considering the matter shall be at liberty to proceed ex parte against either of them after recording its satisfaction in the matter. This application stands allowed with directions. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)