Deepak Gupta, J.

The following question has been referred for decision to the larger Bench:

"Whether the Election Tribunal under Section 441 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 is entitled to consider and decide the question as to whether the returned candidate was entitled to contest from the served seat (Scheduled Caste) which includes the question of verification/determination of caste of the returned candidate for the limited purpose of deciding validity of election or the Election Tribunal's jurisdiction is barred under Section 16 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 in that regard and the matter has necessarily to be referred to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee under Section 7 of the Act of 2013 for that purpose?"

2. The issue involved is whether Section 16 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (hereinafter called 'the Certification Act') bars the Election Tribunal constituted under Section 441 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act, 1956') from entertaining or deciding the issue whether an elected candidate belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or not.

3. The factual matrix, necessary for decision of this case is that Smt. Babita Balmiki (Petitioner herein) was elected as Councillor to the Municipal Corporation, Korba from Ward No. 7 in the elections held on 29.12.2014. This seat was reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman). Respondent No. 4 herein filed an election petition before the Tribunal constituted under Section 441 of the Act, 1956 and one of the points raised in this election petition is that the Petitioner herein does not belong to the Scheduled Caste category and has obtained a forged provisional caste certificate. The Petitioner herein filed an application before the Election Tribunal contending that the Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide whether the caste certificate issued to her was false or not and further contended that this issue be referred for determination to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter called 'the Committee') constituted under the Certification Act. This application was rejected by the Election Tribunal holding that it was empowered to decide the issue. The Petitioner filed the present civil revision and reliance was placed by her on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court delivered in Rajkumari v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (2008 (2) CGLJ 45) wherein the learned Single Judge has held that this matter could be decided only by the Committee. The correctness of this judgment has been doubted in the reference order and since the learned Single Judge could not persuade himself to agree with the earlier judgment, he has referred the aforesaid question for adjudication by the Division Bench.

4. Before referring to the particular provisions of the Certification Act, we may make it clear that this Act has been passed mainly to comply the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Ku. Madhuri Patil & Another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others ((1994) 6 SCC 241) wherein the Apex Court had directed as follows :

"13. xxx xxx xxx

(4) All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status/certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities."

5. We may also mak