Harish Kumar, J. – Heard the parties.

2. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions are one and the identical, thus the same are being taken up and heard analogously and being disposed of by this common order, with the consent of the parties.

3. The challenge made in both the writ petitions is/are the orders of the State Election Commissioner (respondent no. 2), both dated 15.06.2023 by which the matter has been relegated to the Caste Scrutiny Committee of the General Administration Department for determination of caste/social status of the petitioners. The petitioners also sought a declaration that the State Election Commissioner, while exercising his quasi judicial power, was/is under obligation to decide the dispute under Section 136 (2) of the Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 only on the basis of unimpeachable evidence produced by the parties and the State Election Commissioner cannot collect the evidence against an elected representative when a vague complaints unsupported by clinching and unimpeachable evidence is filed before it.

4. The short facts, as gleaned from the record, leading to filing of the present writ petitions are enumerated hereinunder.

5. The petitioner in CWJC No. 9477 of 2023 was elected as Mukhiya in the year 2021 for Gram Panchayat Raj, Biratpur under Sonebarsa Block of Saharsa district. It is contended that the post was reserved for female of Extremely Backward Classes and during the course of scrutiny of her nomination paper and during entire election, at no point of time, any objection was raised by anyone against the nomination of the petitioner. However, after having been declared successful, a complaint was filed by the respondent no. 6 before the State Election Commission that the petitioner doesn’t belong to Extremely Backward Class and, as such, she cannot be permitted to continue on the post, since she is disqualified to contest the election under Section 135 of the Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2006” for the sake of brevity).

6. On receipt of the complaint, so filed, Case No. 03 of 2022 was registered and a report was called for from the District Magistrate, Saharsa, whereupon an enquiry was conducted by the District Planning Officer, Saharsa who submitted his report to the District Magistrate, Saharsa vide Letter No. 370 dated 26.05.2022.

7. On the basis of the report of the District Planning Officer, Saharsa, the District Magistrate, Saharsa submitted his report to the Deputy Secretary of the State Election Commissioner vide Letter No. 246 dated 15.02.2023, disclosing the caste of the petitioner as ‘Bhathiyara’.

8. Despite the report of the District Magistrate, Saharsa having been found in favour of the petitioner, suggesting her caste as ‘Bhathiyara’ which comes under Extremely Backward Classes, the respondent no. 2 vide its order dated 15.06.2023 in Case No. 03 of 2022 requested the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the social status of the petitioner, irrespective of the fact that at the time of hearing of case or before that, no evidence was produced on behalf of the complainant to overcome the report of the District Magistrate, Saharsa.

9. Further, so far the petitioner in CWJC No. 9732 of 2023 is concerned, he was elected as member of Mahishi Block Panchayat Samiti from Mahishi Block Panchayat Samiti Territorial Constituency No. 25, which was reserved for Extremely Backward Classes. On being elected as member of Mahishi Block Panchayat Samiti, the petitioner further successfully contested for the post of Pramukh of Mahishi Block Panchayat Samiti, which was also reserved for members of Extremely Backward Classes. It is submitted that, at no point of time, any objection was raised by any person or candidate against the candidature of the petitioner during the process of scrutiny of petitioner’s nomination. However, only after the petitioner was elected as Pramukh of Mahishi Block Panchayat Samiti, a complaint was filed by the respondent no. 6 to decla