JUDGMENT Honble Amitava Lala, J.—The aforesaid four writ petitions have been placed before us for the purposes of analogous hearing. Three writ petitions out of four writ petitions have been filed by one candidate for the Municipal Election, whose candidature was rejected due to his caste certificate. The fourth writ petition has been filed by an independent candidate, who had withdrawn his candidature in support of the petitioner herein who made the aforesaid writ petitions. 2. The dispute is whether the petitioner belongs to the caste of Backward Muslim community known as "Sheikh Sarwari" or not ? In the Schedule of the relevant notification, we find that there is a "comma" in between the words Sheikh and Sarwari as annexed to the writ petition. However, a clarification has been made by the Judgment of a learned Single Judge rendered in the case of Shamiuddin v. Additional District Judge, Mathura and others, 1998 (16) L.C.D. 424, that Sheikh includes the word Sarwari. Such argument of Sri S.M.A. Kazmi learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner was not opposed by Sri Murlidhar learned senior Counsel opposing the writ petition. His contention is that it is to be proved that whether the petitioner belongs to backward class known as "Sheikh Sarwari" or not ? 3. However, the arguments were advanced by the parties. During course of such arguments, a further question arose with regard to authority of Tehsildar to pass the order impugned dated 30th June, 2007. According to Mr. Murlidhar, the Tehsildar passed such order on the basis of the earlier order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.3.2007 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55051 of 2006, Noman Masood v. State of U.P. and others. Therefore, the Tehsildar upon being empowered by the order appreciate the fact, rejected the caste certificate and also rejected the application of the petitioner. We enquired about the power or authority of a Committee when Sri Kazmi cited a Judgment rendered in the case of Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1996 SC 1338 , paragraphs 15 and 18 of such judgment are quoted below : "15. We enquired about the power or authority of a Committee when Sri Kazmi cited a Judgment rendered in the case of Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1996 SC 1338 , paragraphs 15 and 18 of such judgment are quoted below : "15. It is true that this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patils case (1994 AIR SCW 4116) (supra) has observed (Para 14) : The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a Court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The Court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have been led the Committee ultimately recorded the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts. 18. The High Court without appreciating the probative value of the documents placed before it has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant by simply accepting the conclusions reached by the second-respondent Committee. Undoubtedly, in cases of this type, the burden heavily lies on the applicant who seeks such a certificate. That does not mean that the authorities have no role to play in finding out the correctness or otherwise of the claim for issue of a caste certificate. We are of the view that the concerned authorities must also play a role in assisting the Committee to arrive at a correct decision. In this case, except the documents produced by the appellant, nothing has been produced by the concerned authorities to arrive at a different conclusion." 4. Now, today at the time of beginning of the argument, Sri Murlidhar, learned senior Counsel in support of the respondent-candidate contended before this Court that Article 243-ZG (b) of the Constitution of India as incorporated by way of amendment for the purpose of Municipal election is pari materia to Article 329 (b) of the Constitution made for the election. Now, today at the time of beginning of the argument, Sri Murlidhar, learned senior Counsel in support of the respondent-candidate contended before this Court that Article 243-ZG (b) of the Constitution of India as incorporated by way of amendment for the purpose of Municipal election is pari materia to Article 329 (b) of the Constitution made for the election. Therefore, in a case of election, the writ Court should not interfere with the same by virtue of a celebrated Judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others, 1952 SCR 218 . He advanced his arguments by saying that as soon as election started, there is no scope for the parties to interfere with the same and if the election is over, an aggrieved person can proceed only by election petition. 5. According to us, filing of election petition is suspended in between the period from the date of notification for declaration of election till the date of notification of the declaration of the result, therefore, if anybody is aggrieved in such time he cannot be debarred absolutely from determination of cause by the writ Court. 6. Suspension of proceedings before the Court means regular Court but not the high prerogative writ jurisdiction of the Court which deals with fundamental rights. In the present case, if the petitioners candidature was cancelled for non-availability of valid caste certificate no other candidate will be available for the election since the other candidate, namely Smt. Rushda has already withdrawn her candidature in support of the petitioner-Sri Noman Masood. Thereafter there was the sole candidate, i.e., Sri Suresh Pal-respondent No. 4 herein, only for the purpose of declaration that he is elected, which according to us, is the selection without public mandate. In such a situation, if the writ Court does not intervene only on the ground of alternative forum to wait till the election is over, it will be seal and signature against peoples franchise and thereby we do not hold the submission as made by Sri Murlidhar learned senior Counsel can be acceptable. 7. Therefore, the question available to this Court will be as to whether the writ Court will go to the evidence including as to whether the Tehsildar who was directed to consider the cause arrived at a right decision or not on the basis of evidence available before it. 7. Therefore, the question available to this Court will be as to whether the writ Court will go to the evidence including as to whether the Tehsildar who was directed to consider the cause arrived at a right decision or not on the basis of evidence available before it. According to us, we cannot appreciate the evidence sitting in the writ jurisdiction. We have a limitation and we are not concerned about the decision but the decision making process. In the decision making process, one mistake has been committed by Tehsildar by rejecting the application pursuant to the Judgment of the Supreme Court for the purposes of taking decision in respect of the caste certificate. It appears before us that the notification has been issued on 5.1.1996 being part and parcel of Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition No. 11339 of 2007, Noman Masood v. State of U.P. and others. Sri Murlidhar, learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajai Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, has further cited a Judgment rendered in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, J.T. 1994 (5) S.C. 488 which says the same thing as we have discussed above. Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid Judgment is quoted hereunder : "15. The question then is whether the approach adopted by the High Court in not elaborately considering the case is vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a Court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and record a finding, though another view, as a Court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The Court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have let the Committee ultimately recorded the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts." 8. The Court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have let the Committee ultimately recorded the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts." 8. Sri SMA Kazmi learned senior Counsel in reply to the same, contended before this Court that when the final list was published and the election date was declared thereafter if the rejection is caused and caste certificate is rejected then the petitioner has no other alternative but to invoke the writ jurisdiction and at no point of time invoking of the writ jurisdiction was opposed. Moreover, declaration about the caste certificate is an independent proceeding. 9. However, taking into all pros and cons, we are of the view that we cannot issue a note on the basis of the evidence nor we can say invoking of the writ jurisdiction by the petitioner was absolutely barred. 10. Therefore, in disposing of all the writ petitions, we direct that the matter will be decided by the Committee formed under Notification dated 5.1.1996 within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order upon affording fullest opportunity of hearing to all concerned by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the matter will be sent to the concerned Tehsildar for the purpose of issuance of caste certificate within a period of seven days from the date of such order for making necessary caste certificate and for necessary action and the concerned Tehsildar will do so within a period of seven days from the date of production of such order before it and thereafter the election process will be completed preferably within a period of one month in accordance with law. 11. For the purposes of taking decision in respect of issuance of caste certificate and other necessary formalities with regard to election proceedings which is to be completed within a period of one month from the date of communication of such order. Therefore, in Misc. Writ Petition No. 50285 of 2007, Smt. Rushda v. State of U.P. and others, we are not going to pass any order and it is disconnected from the other matters. The interim order which is passed therein will continue. The said writ petition will appear in due course in the cause list. Therefore, in Misc. Writ Petition No. 50285 of 2007, Smt. Rushda v. State of U.P. and others, we are not going to pass any order and it is disconnected from the other matters. The interim order which is passed therein will continue. The said writ petition will appear in due course in the cause list. So far as the interim order which was passed the other writ petitions that will continue till one week after the communication of the order to be passed by the Committee. Honble V.C. Misra, J.—I agree. ————