JUDGEMENT Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. State, State Election Commission and the contesting private-respondent are present. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 08.06.2009 passed by the Circle Officer, Bhargama, Araria. By the said order, the Circle Officer has cancelled the cast certificate issued to the petitioner showing her to be of extremely backward cast. The contesting private-respondent at whose instance this action was taken has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is pointed out that consequential to the impugned order, the State Election Commission was informed, which has cancelled the candidature of the petitioner in terms of Section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, which fact the petitioner has neither brought on record nor challenged. 3. For contesting election of Mukhiya of Bhargama Gram Panchayat, the petitioner had applied to the Circle Officer for grant of cast certificate claiming herself to be Sekhra cast, which is an extremely backward cast. The cast certificate was issued on 18.03.2006 by the Circle Officer. On basis of the cast certificate, petitioner filed her nomination for contesting election for the post of Mukhiya. In the election petitioner was duly elected as Mukhiya. 4. Respondent No. 7 filed an election petition challenging her election, in which one of the grounds taken by respondent No. 7 was that petitioner had obtained the cast certificate wrongly. She was not belonging to the extremely backward cast, as claimed by her, for contesting the election. While the matter was pending before the Election Tribunal, the respondent No. 7 through her husband moved an application before the State Election Commission challenging the cast certificate, as aforesaid, who referred the matter to the District Magistrate. Before the District Magistrate respondent No. 7 has also filed an application in that regard. The District Magistrate then passed an order directing the Circle Officer to cancel the cast certificate. This has brought the petitioner to this Court challenging such an action without a proceeding in that regard taken against her. This Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Circle Officer, who had granted the certificate. The District Magistrate then passed an order directing the Circle Officer to cancel the cast certificate. This has brought the petitioner to this Court challenging such an action without a proceeding in that regard taken against her. This Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Circle Officer, who had granted the certificate. The Circle Officer then noticed the petitioner, got the enquiry conducted giving full opportunity to the petitioner to lead all evidence in support of her claim and then by the impugned order held that the cast certificate had wrongly obtained as the petitioner was not belonging to extremely backward class. He thus cancelled the certificate. Consequent to the cancellation, he informed the Collector with a request to inform the State Election Commission and takes steps for cancellation of candidature for the post of Mukhiya. This is what, the petitioner has come to this Court. 5. Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Firstly, the Anchal Adhikari/Circle Officer is the competent statutory authority to grant cast certificate. He granted the cast certificate, and then upon protests, after due enquiry cancel the same. In my view, as the order had been passed by the Circle Officer, after due enquiry and after due opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner, petitioner had a right of appeal to the Collector of the district in terms of Boards Miscellaneous Rules and on being dissatisfied with the order of the Collector he could move the Divisional Commissioner and then the Board of Revenue. That is the hierarchy as provided in relation to administrative matter under the Boards Miscellaneous Rules. 6. The second reason for not interfering is that the facts as brought on record clearly show a great amount of dispute, which cannot be resolved in this jurisdiction. The entry in Khatiyan is admittedly against the petitioner. There are various evidences which petitioner has laid in support of her claim. There are counter evidences as well. These questions of fact to be resolved by the authority, as indicated above. Thus, in my view, it is open for the petitioner to move an appeal, which is a more effective remedy than by way of this writ petition. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed.