Judgment 1. By exercise of power under Section 136(1)(a) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State Election Commissioner vide order dated 25.5.2007 contained in Annexure-5, has disqualified the petitioner from holding the post of Mukhiya of Mahinathpur Gram Panchayat in the District of Madhubani. The post of Mukhiya has been treated to be vacant with a direction to fill up the post afresh. Petitioner has challenged this order and seeks quashing of the same in the present writ application. 2. According to petitioner, he is a citizen of India and he contested and won the election for the post of Mukhiya of Mahinathpur Gram Panchayat. After the result was declared and petitioner became Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat, a complaint case no. 2/2007 came to be filed before the State Election Commissioner, Bihar. Challenge in the said complaint case was under Section 136(1)(a) of the Act. The matter came to be heard on various dates, evidence was produced in the matter both on behalf of the State authorities as well as private respondent no. 4 to the present writ application. These evidences led towards a conclusion that the petitioner had acquired Nepali Citizenship when he attained the age of 17 years. His father too had Nepali Citizenship so does one of his brothers. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that the impugned decision is erroneous both on fact as well as law. According to him, petitioner was born and brought up in India and in support of the same he has given a detailed genealogical table in the writ application contained in Para 4. Not only this, according to him, even his education from schooling till college was in India and he has quite a few documents in his favour to show that the petitioner is an Indian Citizen. He further contends that he never applied for citizenship of Nepal and if there is evidence with regard to the same, he completely disowns the same as forged and fabricated documents. 4. The question, therefore, for decision in the present writ application is whether the power exercised by the State Election Commissioner is based on cogent reasons duly supported by evidence or the same requires judicial interference. 5. 4. The question, therefore, for decision in the present writ application is whether the power exercised by the State Election Commissioner is based on cogent reasons duly supported by evidence or the same requires judicial interference. 5. The Court has perused the materials which have been brought on record as well as the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. One fact surely emerges that the records which were duly verified by the officials on making a visit to the district authorities of Dhanusa situated in Nepal brought about a basic fact that the petitioner-Vijoy Kumar Choudhary was issued Nepalese Citizenship in Bikram Samvat 2034-7-14 and his Citizenship No, is 11667/396987-60. At the time when the Citizenship was acquired by the petitioner he was 17 years of age. In this regard, the Court had an occasion in yet another matter to examine the provisions of the Nepalese Citizenship Act of 1964. Section 9(2) of the Nepalese Citizenship Act has relevance and is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: 9. Loose of Nepali Citizenship: (1) The Nepali Citizenship of any Nepali Citizen shall automatically lapse on his acquiring the citizenship of any foreign country of his own will. (2) In case any person becomes a citizen of a foreign country as well as of Nepal at the same time by reason of birth and Jus sanquinis, he may choose the Citizenship of either country within five years of reaching 16 years of age. In case he doesnt do so, his Nepali citizenship shall automatically lapse on the expiry of this time-limit: Provided that persons who have acquired citizenship in this manner before the commencement of this Act shall choose their citizenship before Chaitra 30, 2037 (April 12, 1981), or else their citizenship shall ipso facto lapse. (3) In case a question arises as to whether or not any citizen of Nepal has acquired the citizenship of any foreign country or when or how he has acquired such citizenship, the matter shall be decided by the prescribed authority in accordance with current Nepal Law. 6. By virtue of the above provisions, if the petitioner acquired Nepalese Citizenship after reaching the age of 17 years, for which, evidence is available on record and there was no reason to disbelieve the same then it is difficult to hold that merely because the petitioner has several documents in his possession he becomes an Indian Citizen. 6. By virtue of the above provisions, if the petitioner acquired Nepalese Citizenship after reaching the age of 17 years, for which, evidence is available on record and there was no reason to disbelieve the same then it is difficult to hold that merely because the petitioner has several documents in his possession he becomes an Indian Citizen. Citizenship is a sensitive issue and loyalty to the nation is equally important. It cannot be urged and stated by anyone that he can profess loyalties to two different nations and also claim a public office despite prima facie being a citizen of yet another country. Merely because the Panchayat or village in question from where the petitioner hails lies close to the international border, he does not have a special privilege of claiming Citizenship of two different countries by obtaining and creating documents in this regard. The Court after perusing the impugned order contained in Annexure-5, does not find any factual or legal infirmity which will force the hands of this Court to interfere with the same. 7. The writ application therefore, is dismissed as being devoid of any merit.