IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6940 of 2011 ETWARI MODI . Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. ----------- 2. 09.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the State Election Commission. The petitioner filed nomination to contest the Gram Panchayat Elections in Gram Panchayat Raj, Maniya, Kotoria, District-Banka which has been rejected on the ground that his caste certificate dated 3.12.2010 annexed to the nomination form had been cancelled on 4.4.2011. Learned counsel submits that earlier in the year 2006, the petitioner had contested elections in the same constituency on strength of his caste certificate as belonging to the backward caste Kaura (Kora) an extremely backward as per Annexure-1. The petitioner before filing his present nomination obtained similar caste certificate on 10.12.2010 from the Circle Officer, Katoria at Banka. That has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 4.4.2011 without notice to him or any opportunity to show cause. Elections to the constituency in question are scheduled for 18.5.2011. Reliance is placed on a specific assertion in Paragraph-12 of the writ application that the impugned order dated 4.4.2011 2 was without notice to show cause. Learned counsel for the State refers to the impugned order dated 4.4.2011 and submits from Paragraph-3 of the same itself that it does not appear, that the impugned order was ex-parte in nature when it states that the petitioner verbally submitted answers to the Anchal Adhikari. Learned counsel for the State Election Commission submits that a report has already been sought from the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat) Banka by letter dated 12.4.2011. At this stage, the Court is not concerned with the caste status of the petitioner but with the procedure of the decision making process before cancellation of his caste certificate. The recitals in the impugned order dated 4.4.2011 are suggestive of the petitioner having been heard which he denies. It is a matter fact. The caste certificate dated 10.12.2010, finds no reference in the order dated 4.4.2011. If the petitioner has been heard before the impugned order dated 4.4.2011 was passed, the issue becomes entirely different for consideration when there may be no ground for interference with the rejection of his nomination at this stage without 3 prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to ventilate his grievance in a properly constituted election petition. But, if the impugned order dated 4.4.2011 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without considering relevant materials such as caste certificate dated 10.12.2010, obviously, the same is not sustainable in its present form. In that event, the impugned order shall stand vitiated on the face of it with its attendant consequence including the nomination of the petitioner, but without prejudice to the rights of the State respondents to proceed afresh in context of the determination of his caste in accordance with law. Since the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer appears to be already seized of the matter by the letter dated 12.4.2011 of the Commission, let the District Magistrate send a report to the Election Commission at this stage limited to the issue whether the petitioner was heard in the matter or not and all relevant and germane materials considered before the impugned order was passed as discussed in the present order to enable the State Election Commission to take an appropriate decision on the nomination of the petitioner. Considering that elections are stated for 18.5.2011, the District 4 Magistrate is required to send this preliminary information to the Election Commission within a maximum period of 48 hours from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this present order before him, if not already done. Let the Xerox copy of the communication dated 14.4.2011, produced on behalf of the State Election Commission be kept on record. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)