IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7115 of 2010 AFSHANA PRAVIN @ BIBI ISHRATI BEGUM alias Bibi Shabana khatoon wife of Anayatullah, Resident of village-Bhokarahi, P.O.-Kadampura, P.S. Kishanpur, Dist-Supaul. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa. 3. The District Magistrate, Supaul. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul. 5. The District Programme Officer, Supaul. 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Kishanpur, Supaul. 7. The Mukhiya, katahara kadampura Gram-Panchayat Kishanpur, Supaul. 8. The Panchayat Secretary, katahara Kadampura Gram Panchayat, Kishanpur, Supaul. 9. Nazrana Begum, wife of Md. Naushad Alam, resident of village-Bhokarahi, P.O. Kadampur, P.s. Kishanpur, Dit-Supaul. ----------- For the Petitioner: - 1. Mr.Md.Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv. 2. Mr. Kinkar Kumar, Adv. For the State & Respondents:- Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, A.C to G.A.5. For the Respondent No. 9:- Mr. Subodh Kumar jha, Adv. Mr. Anjani Kumar, Adv. 2 20.1.2011 This application has been filed for quashing the order of the Collector, Supaul as contained in Annexure-19, and the appellate order of the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa as contained in Annexure-23. The Collector in his order, after relying upon the report of the S.D.O dated 8.8.2009 as contained in Annexure-17, 2 has held that the petitioner impersonated herself as Afshana Pravin wife of Md. Anayatullah, and got herself engaged as Anganwari Sevika, whereas in fact, her real name was Bibi Isharati Begun. For the purposes of impersonating as Afshana Pravin she used the certificates of her ‘gotini’ the wife of elder brother of her husband, who was also of the same name. In the circumstances, due to false impersonation and mistake of identity in her engagement, the engagement of petitioner has been canceled. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the S.D.O Supaul, on whose report the entire order of Collector is based, did not examine entire records and supporting documents, which establishes that petitioner was also having the name Afshana Pravin. Since after marriage the family found that the wife of the elder brother and this petitioner were having the same name, they unofficially changed her name as Bibi Isharati Begun and started calling her as such. Due to this nick name given to her, the same was recorded in the voter list and 3 therefore she filed her nomination with the same name in Zila Parishad Election, which only has been noticed by the S.D.O. in his report. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that documents,which establishes that the petitioner was in fact Afshana Pravin were neither called for from the petitioner nor examined by the S.D.O. There appears to be a serious dispute with regard to identity of the petitioner and her real name, as complainant- cum-respondent No. 9 submits that material documentary evidences show that the petitioner’s real name was Bibi Isharati Begun and she used the name and certificate of her Gotini to get the engagement as Anganwari Sevika. Learned Counsel for the respondent State authorities also supports the submissions of the learned Counsel for the private respondents. From the report of the S.D.O Supaul it appears that he has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is Bibi Isharati Begun, only on the basis of the voter list, nomination filed by her and further that the 4 petitioner did not try to correct her name before the Election Officer at the time of Zila Parishad Election. In view of the serious dispute of the fact and identity, without quashing the orders of the Collector and Commissioner, this Court directs the S.D.O Supaual to hold a fresh enquiry, call for the wife of the Hidaytullah as well as the wife of Anayatullah that is the petitioner before him in person. The complainant shall also be allowed to be present before him. The parties will appear before the S.D.O Supaul on the date fixed with all supporting documents in original, which shall be examined and verified and identity of the petitioner shall be determined on the basis of the same and by matching her photograph, as may be available on record with the petitioner. After holding this physical enquiry the S.D.O Supaul shall submit a fresh report to the Collector, with his findings arrived in the enquiry, for further action. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and 5 directions. It is expected that the S.D.O Supaul will complete the enquiry and come to a finding and submitted his report to the Collector preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Prakash (J.N.Singh, J.)