JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioners candidature for standing PACS election for the post of Chairman of Panchayat Lodipur in the District of Gaya has been rejected on the ground that he has dues payable to the Magadh Central Co-operative Bank, Gaya. Petitioner contends that he had received a no dues certificate which he had filed alongwith the nomination paper issued by the Assistant Manager namely Ashok Kumar on 25.9.2009. On 1.10.2009 the same very Ashok Kumar, Assistant Manager, Magadh Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Gaya apparently issued another certificate in which it was stated that Rs. 5,000/- were due which certificate was filed by one Satyendra Singh purporting to be of Village-Lodipur, Gaya. Petitioner was asked accordingly by the Assistant Returning Officer to clarify the position. While the matter was pending the Election Office, who is the Block Development Officer as well asked the District Co-operative Officer to enquire into the matter of the no dues certificate. From the records as produced, it is clear that on 5.10.2009 a certificate was granted by the Managing Director, Magadh Central Co-operative Bank to the District Co-operative Officer clearly stating that there was no dues as against inter alia the petitioner. This certificate was being granted after verification of the records of the Bank still petitioners candidature was rejected. There were two other nominations as well and all of which was rejected on various grounds. Thus, the process is set for re-election. 2. Mr. Purnendu Singh, learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petition states that the records will bear that the Managing Director of the Magadh Central Co-operative Bank had certified to the Returning Officer (B.D.O.) that petitioner had no dues. In that view of the matter the candidature of petitioner could not have been cancelled on account of dues. What surprises this Court is that the Assistant Manager of the Bank at first issues a no dues certificate to the petitioner and then soon thereafter issues a certificate showing that there are dues and hands it over to a person for filing objection before the Returning Officer. This certificate is found to be false by the Managing Director of the said Bank as the Managing Director after scrutiny of books of accounts certifies that there are no dues against the petitioner. This certificate is found to be false by the Managing Director of the said Bank as the Managing Director after scrutiny of books of accounts certifies that there are no dues against the petitioner. It is thus a wrong certificate issued by the Assistant Manager, Ashok Kumar that led to rejection of petitioners nomination which was clearly wrong. 3. Thus, at this stage itself, I direct the Chairman of the Magadh Central Co- operative Bank to take strictest action permissible in law as against the said Ashok Kumar, Assistant Manager for issuing false certificates to cause harm to the petitioner. The action may be completed in all respect within a period of three months from today. 4. So far as petitioner is concerned, it stands established that his nomination is wrongfully rejected. It was rejected on a wrong certificate wrongfully granted by the Assistant Manager which position now stands clarified by the certificate granted by the Chairman of the Bank himself and filed by the District Co-operative Officer before the Returning Officer. Thus, on the fact of it rejection of petitioners candidature was wrong. 5. Mr. K.B. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Authority submits that whether the rejection of nomination is correct or not is a question to be decided by the Tribunal in a duly constituted election suit. In my view, that has now become a fate accompli in view of the fact as recorded by this Court above that there is no necessity of election petition at all because the records of the Returning Officer must clearly shows that petitioner was not a debtor to any Co-operative Society and the certificate on basis of which his candidature was rejected was wrongly granted only to harm him. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court already having found this in favour of the petitioner, the result would be that the rejection of nomination of petitioner as done by the Block Development Officer- cum-Returning Officer is set aside. Petitioners nomination would be valid. The election process for election of the Chairman of the said PACS would accordingly continue in accordance with law. 7. The stay granted by this Court earlier in this matter thus stands vacated. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of.