1. As per Dipak Misra, CJ.The appellant-petitioner was elected to the post of Mukhiya of Khutauna Gram Panchayat, reserved for Extremely Backward Class, on the basis of caste certificate obtained from the Circle Officer, Khutauna bearing no. 621 dated 10.2.2001, on the basis of which the Sub-Divisional Officer issued certificate no. 267 dated 24.7.2003 and the District Magistrate issued certificate no. 904 dated 26.7.2003 stating that he belongs to Kanu caste which has been placed under the list of Extremely Backward Class.

2. The respondent no. 9, one Ram Babu Kamat, challenged the issue of caste certificate in favour of the appellant on many a ground and, eventually, the Sub- Divisional Officer and the District Magistrate concerned cancelled the caste certificate which came to be assailed in CWJC No. 4742 of 2007 wherein this Court vide order dated 13.5.2008 held that the order had been passed without issuing notice to the appellant and, accordingly, remitted the matter to the District Magistrate for fresh adjudication as regards the caste status of the appellant in accordance with law. After the remit, the District Magistrate, upon hearing the appellant and the 8th respondent, passed an order on 30.6.2008 holding that the appellant does not belong to Kanu caste but belongs to Halwai caste which is categorized as Backward Class and not Extremely Backward Class.

3. It is worth noting that on the basis of the earlier order passed by the District Magistrate, the State Election Commission (for short the Commission) had passed an order on 10.2.2008 removing the appellant from the post of Mukhiya but recalled the same after the interim order was passed by the writ Court on 15.4.2008. After the remit, when the District Magistrate passed the order on 30.6.2008, the Commission afforded an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and on the basis of the material brought on record passed the order dated 28.7.2008 removing the appellant from his post and directing for holding of fresh election.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that the District Magistrate had totally failed to appreciate the law by determining the caste of the appellant and further the order passed by him is based on total non-consideration of the material brought on record; that the Commission has no jurisdiction to disqualify him on the ground of caste in view of the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Act, 2006 (for brevity the 2006 Act) which provides a machinery to challenge the election by way of an election petition before the election tribunal constituted under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder; that if the respondent no. 8, who knew very well about the caste of the appellant, chose not to file an election petition under the 2006 Act but took recourse to a different procedure for removing him from the post through the State Election Commission, the same should not be given acceptation; that the Commission has no authority to pass an order of the present nature in view of the decision rendered in State Election Commission & Ors. vs. Punam Kumari & Anr., 2009(2) PUR 189; that the decision in Arun Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2006(3) PLJR (SC)17 supports the case of the appellant to the effect that he could not be treated to have been disqualified to hold the post and as the reasons ascribed by the learned Single Judge are not acceptable in law, the impugned order is sensitively susceptible.

5. The stand and stance put forth by the appellant was combatted by the Commission contending, inter alia, that it has the jurisdiction to remove him from the post of Mukhiya under Section 136(1)(h) of the 2006 Act; that the decision in Arun Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh (supra) is distinguishable and that the order passed by the Commission is unsustainable in law.

6. The respondent no. 8 supported the order of the District Magistrate and justified that the cancellation of the caste certificate is valid in the eye of law; that t