ORDER 1. Short facts of the case are that petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the petitioner is an Adivasi (Bheel). He was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chatli, Tehsil and District Badwani constituted under the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. It was alleged that office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat stands reserved for the Adivasi Class of the society. After the election on 7.2.2000, the respondents No.3 to 17 lodged a complaint before the respondent No.2, SDO Sendhwa to the effect that petitioner is not an Adivasi. It was alleged that previously he has posed himself by caste Koli which is a Scheduled Caste. Upon the complaint made by respondents No.3 to 17, the respondent No.2 registered a case and held the enquiry wherein vide order dated 7.7.2000 (Annexure P-7), it was found that the petitioner is a Koli which comes under the category of Scheduled Caste. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Collector, Badwani which was dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2000 (Annexure P-8). 2. The election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Adivasi Caste was challenged in an election petition. The election petition was allowed, against which the petitioner filed a writ petition which was numbered as Writ Petition No.335/2002. By the time, the petition could have been disposed of, the term of post of Sarpanch was over, therefore, petition was dismissed by this Court having become infructuous. 3. The only question for determination in this petition is that whether the order passed by the SDO, Sendhwa is within its jurisdiction? 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that SDO, Sendhwa had no authority to determine the caste of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the SDO, Sendhwa has held in its order that the petitioner is Koli by caste, which is a scheduled caste and not an Adivasi, which is schedule tribe, therefore, this order will be in his way all the time. Learned counsel submits that so far as determining the social status of a citizen, detailed instructions have been given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 , which reads as under : "To streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, it may be the following: 1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent Gazetted officer or non-Gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the concerned directorate. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the scrutiny committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before' seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely (i) Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (ii) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may, and (iii) in the caste 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. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode or marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc. 6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or "doubtful" or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due to through the head of the concerned educational institution in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that there presentation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convent the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes wuch a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report of the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-today proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the caste scrutiny committee finds the claim to be false or superious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. 10. In case of any delay in finalizing the proceedings and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly swon by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the scrutiny committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceeding before any other authority should lie. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed or by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed or by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for election posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or the Parliament. 15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the scrutiny committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the concerned educations institution or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the education institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority should cancel the admission/ appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate for further study or continue in office in a post." 5. From perusal of order (Annex.P-7), it appears that order was passed in ex parte. However, learned counsel for respondent submits that in compliance of the order passed by Hon'ble apex Court, a High Power Scrutiny Committee has been constituted in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In view of this, this petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) Complaint filed by respondents No.3 to 17 against the petitioner shall be referred by respondent No.2 before the High Power Scrutiny Committee within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. (ii) High Power Scrutiny Committee after giving an opportunity of submission of reply and documents, if any, and after giving an opportunity of hearing, shall pass a reasoned order within 4 months from the date of receipt of the complaint. (iii) It will be the duty of the petitioner to place the certified copy of the order of this Court in the office of respondent No.2 with due acknowledgement. (iii) It will be the duty of the petitioner to place the certified copy of the order of this Court in the office of respondent No.2 with due acknowledgement. (iv) From the date of submission of the certified copy of the order, operation of order Annexure P-7 passed by respondent No.2 shall remain in abeyance till the matter is finally decided by the High Power Scrutiny Committee.