ORDER 1. In this petition petitioner has assailed an order (P-8) dated 29.9.2005 passed by the SDO ordering her removal from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Badanpur, District Satna. Order has been passed as contemplated under section 36 (3) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam, 1993"). 2. A complaint was preferred before the SDO by respondent No.1 for setting aside the election of Sarpanch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat on the ground that the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Badanpur was served for scheduled tribe women candidate. Petitioner Smt. Bhanwati was elected as Sarpanch. It was submitted that petitioner belongs to Baheliya caste, which was not included in district Satna in scheduled tribe category. It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid complaint the SDO has issued a show cause notice to petitioner Smt. Bhanwati, in the reply petitioner admitted her caste to be Baheliya, however, she claimed c that she was scheduled tribe. It appears that SDO called for the report from Tahsildar and on the basis of aforesaid report, decision has been rendered against the petitioner. Election has been declared to be void. 3. Shri G.S. Baghel, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that no election petition was preferred under section 122 of Adhiniyam, 1993. The order could have been passed under section 36 (3) of Adhiniyam, 1993 in case the caste of the petitioner was not correct, by the Collector. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Roshanlal Maravi v. Shambhu Singh [2005 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 295 = 2005 (1) MPLJ 467 ]. He has further submitted that enquiry was not conducted by the SDO, petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing, adducing the evidence and copy of the report obtained from the Tahsildar was also not furnished to the petitioner, thus impugned order lacks jurisdictional competence, same deserves to be set aside. 4. Shri Deepak Awasthi, Dy. GA for State has also placed reliance on the decision of Roshanlal Maravi v. Shambhu Singh (supra). He has submitted that action can be taken under section 122 or section 36 in case there was concealment of the caste and such a matter could have been enquired into by the Collector. 5. 4. Shri Deepak Awasthi, Dy. GA for State has also placed reliance on the decision of Roshanlal Maravi v. Shambhu Singh (supra). He has submitted that action can be taken under section 122 or section 36 in case there was concealment of the caste and such a matter could have been enquired into by the Collector. 5. Shri P.K. Senger, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 to 5 has submitted that on proper enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, the SDO has passed the order and it has been found that caste of the petitioner is Baheliya, which is not included in district Satna in scheduled tribe category, as such election has been rightly set aside, no case for interference is made out in this petition. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion the complaint could not have been entertained by the SDO. It was not an election petition assailing the election under section 122 of Adhiniyam, 1993. An election petition could be tried by the SDO being competent authority to try the election petition under section 122 and the order of SDO under rule 25 of The Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices And Disqualification For Membership) Rules, 1995 is final. However, in the instant case it is not in dispute that election petition was not preferred but a complaint was preferred, the complaint could have been looked into with respect to the disqualification based on caste under section 36 (3) of Adhiniyam, 1993 by the Collector. The Collector is the competent authority with respect to the Gram Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat and for District Panchayat, the Commissioner is the competent authority as per section 36 (3) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 which is quoted below :- "36 (3). Decision about vacancy. -- (1) As stated above, an office-bearer who becomes disqualified subsequently, shall be so declared and his office shall be declared vacant by a competent authority. The competent authority is, - (i) Collector, in the case of Gram Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat; (ii) Commissioner, in the case of Zila Parishad. (2) The competent authority shall give his decision either on an application being made by any person or he may do so on his own motion. But no order shall be passed against any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) The competent authority shall give his decision either on an application being made by any person or he may do so on his own motion. But no order shall be passed against any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. For comments on 'reasonable opportunity', the kindly look to comments under Ss. 40 and 87. A Division Bench of this Court in Roshan lal Maravi v. Shambhu Singh (supra) has laid down that when there is concealment of caste, making representation that he/she belongs to caste of schedule tribe and such a person is elected as office bearer, it can be challenged either under section 122 or by an application filed under section 36 (2) of the Act. The Court held thus : "7. The question then is what would be the remedy if a person is elected by claiming to belong to a reserved category, either falsely or wrongly. The learned Single Judge has held that any irregularity in the caste certificate can give rise to an election petition raising a dispute regarding election under section 122 of the Act. Claiming a caste falsely or producing a false certificate would also amount to concealing the disqualification for becoming an office bearer. Section 36 (2) of the Act provides that if any person having been elected as an office bearer of a Panchayat, becomes such office bearer by concealing his disqualification for it and such disqualification had not been questioned and decided by any election petition under section 122, he shall cease to be such office bearer and his office shall become vacant, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) of section 36 provides that the Collector shall be the authority competent to decide whether a vacancy has occurred under sub-section (2) in regard to a Gram Panchayat and he may give his decision either on an application made to him by any person or on his own motion. Sub-section (3) of section 36 also makes it clear that until the Collector decided that a vacancy has occurred, the person shall not cease to be an office bearer. Proviso to sub-section (3) provides that no order shall be passed under subsection (3) without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The grounds of disqualification are enumerated in clauses (a) to (m) of sub-section (1) of section 36. Proviso to sub-section (3) provides that no order shall be passed under subsection (3) without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The grounds of disqualification are enumerated in clauses (a) to (m) of sub-section (1) of section 36. The concealment of the caste and making a representation that he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, is a disqualification underc1ause (k) or (1). If a particular seat is reserved for a Scheduled Tribe, it follows that the person who does not belong to Scheduled Tribe is disqualified by law made by the State Legislature to be elected to such seat. Therefore, there can be no doubt that a case relating to false caste certificate or false caste claim with reference to a reserved seat would fall under section 36 (2) and/or section 122 of the Act. Any act amounting to concealment of a disqualification, that is, a non-Scheduled Tribe person contesting for an election to a seat reserved for a Scheduled Tribe can be challenged either under section 122 or by an application under section 36 (3) of the Act." 8. Consequently the order passed within the purview of section 36 (1) (k) read with section 36 (3) of Adhiniyam, 1993 could not have been passed by the SDO as the competent authority was the Collector. Let the complaint be forwarded to the Collector. The Collector shall decide the complaint after recording the evidence of the parties and making available the copy of the enquiry report to the parties. Opportunity of examining/ cross-examination of witnesses has also to be afforded. 9. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. Let Collector take a decision after recording the evidence in accordance with law within six months. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.