GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. The challenge in this election petition is to the election held for the Member of Chhattisgarh State Legislative Assembly of Area No.24 of Marwahi Constituency. The result of the election was declared on 09.11.2013 wherein the respondent Amit Ajit Jogi was declared as elected. One of the Candidate Sameera Paikra D/o Late Gangaram Kanwar who was a contesting candidate from BJP is the petitioner. Respondent no.1 Amit Ajit Jogi was contesting candidate of Indian National Congress. The returned candidate was Amit Ajit Jogi and secured total 82909 votes whereas Sameera Paikra was polled 38659 votes thereby respondent no.1 was declared elected.

2. The inter-alia ground of challenge is that on 28.10.2013 the petitioner filed an application for grant of social status (caste) certificate before the Tahsildar Pendra Road and Tahsildar Pendra Road without having any jurisdiction issued the caste certificate on the same day by completing enquiry. It was stated that respondent no.1 did not have valid caste certificate to contest the election as the seat was reserved for scheduled tribe. The further pleading is that Amit Ajit Jogi did not file any application in prescribed format 5A to get the caste certificate and on 31.10.2013 when the Act of The Chhattisgarh Scheduled Social Status (Cast) Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act 2013 and Rules 2013 was enforced the caste certificate so held by respondent No.1 would be invalid as the procedure and rules were not followed.

3. The further pleading is that the returning officer and the officer who issued the caste certificate are one and the same, therefore, issuing authority was a judge of his own case and acceptance of the nomination form on the basis of social caste certificate would be bad in law.

4. It is further pleaded that respondent No.1 was born at Dallas Texas (USA) and was American citizen by birth but had filed his nomination as an Indian citizen, therefore, no dual citizenship is permitted, he could not have contested the election.

5. The further pleading was that the grand-father and grandmother of respondent No.1 were not tribes as they have adopted the Cristian religion, so they do not continue to be tribe to contest the election to the said seat. It is further stated that the returned candidate (R-1) submitted wrong information before filing the nomination paper that his place of birth was at village Sarbahara whereas he was born at USA. Consequently, wrong averments were made by suppression of fact. The petitioner contended that the returning officer should not have accepted the nomination of candidate and illegally accepted the nomination and having objected to the same, without any justification the same was dismissed. The petitioner further pleaded that during the election they distributed money at the polling booth as such adopted the corrupt practice, therefore, the election required to be set aside.

6. The said pleading was denied by the returned candidate. No averments of the petition was accepted.

On the basis of the pleading, the following issues were framed by the Court :

1	Whether the acceptance of nomination form of respondent by Returning Officer on the basis of provisional caste certificate was illegal ?	"Not proved"
2	Whether respondent No.1 suppressed the material fact which would render the election to be declared void ?	"Not proved"
3	Whether the respondent is guilty of committing corrupt practice ?	"Not proved"
4	Whether the finding over caste certificate can be adjudicated in the instant election petition ?	"Yes"
5	Whether respondent no.1 was entitled for contesting the assembly election of the State being American Citizen by birth ?	"Was Indian Citizen at the time