Petitioner, by this writ petition, challenges the order dated 02.08.2013 (Annexure 14) passed by the State Election Commissioner (respondent No 1) in Case No 41 of 2012 disqualifying the petitioner on the ground that he was, on the date he filed his nomination, he was in default of payment of house tax due to the Rafiganj Nagar Panchayat and, as such, he was disqualified to contest the election for the post of Ward Counselor and consequential orders passed therein declaring the post vacant in effect ordering fresh election. The contesting respondent (respondent No 10) has appeared, filed counter affidavit. State Election Commission has been represented and has been heard.

The sole issue, in the present case, is whether the order of the State Election Commission can be sustained in law or not. Shri S B K Mangalam, learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submits that it is not in dispute that prior to election, petitioner had filed an application to the Nagar Panchayat for being granted a no dues certificate. No dues certificate was duly granted which is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. It is also not in dispute that when he filed his nomination alongwith the said no dues certificate, no person raised any objection to the same. It may specifically be noted that respondent No 10, who was at that time Vice Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat and who had also filed his nomination from the same Ward, also did not raise any objection. Elections having taken place, respondent No 10 lost. He, thereafter, filed a complaint before the State Election Commission pleading that petitioner was in default of payment of municipal tax in respect of house, Holding No 177 and, as such, was disqualified in terms of Section 18 (1) (k) read with Section 18 (2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. Parties were noticed and matter was heard by the State Election Commission who also directed an enquiry into the alleged default as petitioner vehemently protested. He had brought on record that long prior to issuance of no dues certificate to him by the Nagar Panchayat, he had made an application on 16.02.2012 to the Nagar Panchayat stating that he had another property being Holding No 177 which should be mutated in his name and municipal tax assessment be made. In that application itself, he had stated that it should be done at an early date because he was to contest election as against respondent No 10 who was influential being Vice Chairman and could delay or create complications in the matter. A reminder was also sent in this regard. What is now stated by the private respondent is that in fact in 2008 itself, a demand had been raised in respect of that house known to the petitioner and these were camouflage by the petitioner to get away from the disqualification. The State Election Commission went into elaborate evidences, enquiries. It constituted committee to enquire into the matter and then came to the finding that there were dues against the petitioner and, as such, disqualified him. Having considered the matter, in my view, when issues become so contentious, in a summary proceeding by the State Election Commission, such issues should not normally be adjudicated. There were serious allegations made by the petitioner that documents were being prepared as against him. On the contrary, the other side was also making serious allegations of similar nature against the petitioner. Both the sides were denying the signature. They were getting person to deny having received documents. The Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat clearly filed an application before the Commission stating that most of the documents being produced were undated and it could not be verified as to when demands were raised or paid. Petitioner even denied having made payment in respect of this disputed holding in September 2012 long after the elections as he had not received any demand pursuant to his request, as noted earlier. He alleged that all this was manipulat