The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner failed to establish Indian citizenship by birth or subsequently, and thus, the question of application of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act did not arise. The court also affirmed the competence of the State Election Commission to decide disqualification matters, even if they pertained to a period prior to the election, under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 22.12.2008 passed in Case No. 25/2008 by the State Election Commission, Bihar (respondent no. 3) in exercise of power under Section 136(1) & (2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 holding that the petitioner is a citizen of Nepal and therefore he is not eligible to continue on the elected post of Mukhiya of Bihar and accordingly disqualified him and held that the post of Mukhiya had become vacant from the date of order and to be filled up in accordance with law.

3. The short facts are that the petitioner was elected as Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Dangraul, Block-Gaunaha, District-West Champaran in the election held in the year 2006 and thereafter assumed the office. It appears that a complaint was filed by respondent no. 7 Baliram Yadav before the State Election Commission with a prayer to declare that the petitioner is not eligible to hold the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Dangraul alleging that he is a citizen of Nepal and suppressing the said fact has declared himself as a citizen pf India and contested the election for the post of Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat and was elected to the same. It is further alleged enclosing photocopy of the electoral roll of Nepal that the name of his entire family finds place in the same Further document regarding registration of land is also alleged in which citizenship number of the petitioner was stated, in addition photocopy of the certificate of citizenship giving the citizenship number of the petitioner was also enclosed.

4. The petitioner was duly noticed by letter dated 23.9.2008 issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Commission and on receipt of the same filed his show cause stating that the petitioner was born in undivided India and thus he became a citizen of India by birth under Articles 5 to 9 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that he has never renounced his citizenship as provided under Section 8 of the Citizenship Act in order to acquire citizenship of a foreign country under Section 9 of the said Act. It is further stated that the petitioner did not hold passport of any country and was married to citizen of India and is ordinarily/permanently resident in India since birth. It was further, claimed that the father of the petitioner was also a citizen of India and had been getting privy purse from the Government of India and it was alleged that due to political rivalry between the complainant and the petitioner and due to dispute with his brother living in Nepal who is also well known to the complainant, he was trying to deprive him of his elected post. It was admitted that the petitioner is a descendant of Nepalese grandparents belonging to royal family of Nepal from whom he has got some property as a bequest. The identity card and other documents were alleged to be fabricated, manipulated and forged by the complainant in collusion with his enemies. Subsequently another show cause was filed by the petitioner in which apart from repeating the aforesaid facts it was stated that citizenship of the uncle of the petitioner Sri Narayan Vikram Sah was challenged by Sri Kedar Pandey and in the judgment reported in AIR 1966 SC 160 the Supreme Court has held that his uncle was a citizen of India. It was further submitted that under the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act the Central Government alone is empowered to decide the matter. It is also stated that a certificate has been issued by the District Administration, Bara, Kaleya, Nepal stating that the petitioner was not a citizen of Nepal.

5. In view of the aforesaid conflicting stand of the parties the State Election Commission directed the District Magistrate to send a report in the matter. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah by his letter dated 3.12.2008 submitted his report before the Commission stating that a report had been sent from the District Administration, Bara