ORDER 27.07.2012 - Heard. The petitioner contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Tentulia Gram Panchayat in the District of Balasore, which was a reserved seat for Scheduled Tribe women. Before contesting for the election, the petitioner produced a caste certificate granted by the Tahasildar, Nilagiri certifying that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. In the election, the petitioner was elected. Subsequent thereto, one Gaurahari Nayak filed a petition before the Tahasildar, Nilgiri that the petitioner has obtained the caste certificate by suppressing material facts and falsely stated that she is not the daughter of Laxman Bindhani though she is the daughter of one Sarada Bindhani of village Badasahi. Receiving such communication, the Tahasildar, Nilgiri initiated a proceeding under Rule 8(2) of the Orissa Caste Certificate for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Rules, 1980. Challenging initiation of such proceeding under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8 of the aforesaid rules, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5012 of 2012. This Court by order dated 27.03.2012, disposed of the said writ application with the following direction: "I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the matter. However, I direct that in the event, the petitioner has not been able to file her show cause on 23.02.2012, she will be given opportunity to file a show cause before the Tahasildar and if such show cause is filed by 15th April, 2012, the opposite party No.1-Tahasildar shall proceed to decide the said case, being Review Case No. 1 of 2012, on merit by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner will also be permitted to give evidence before the Tahasildar both oral and documentary. The Tahasildar shall make all endeavours to dispose of the review case finally by the end of May, 2012. The Tahasildar-opposite party No. 1 shall act on production of certified copy of this order." After issuance of the above directions, the petitioner filed two affidavits of one Pradeep Bindhani and one Lila Chandra Bindhani as evidence on affidavit along with his show cause before the Tahasildar. The Tahasildar called for a report under Annexure-12 from the Tahasildar, Udala. The Tahasildar, Udala directed the Revenue Inspector to cause an inquiry. The Tahasildar called for a report under Annexure-12 from the Tahasildar, Udala. The Tahasildar, Udala directed the Revenue Inspector to cause an inquiry. The R.I., who was directed to cause the inquiry was the same R.I. who initially enquired into the matter and submitted a report on the basis of which the caste certificate was issued to the petitioner. However, the same R.I. subsequently reported that the petitioner on fake assertions has obtained the caste certificate. Challenging the letter under Annexure-12 asking the Tahasildar, Udala to enquire into the matter, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application. Learned counsel for the State was directed to obtain instruction and in response to the said order has produced the entire record before this Court. From the same, it appears that when the writ petition was pending the Tahasildar, Nilgiri basing on the report of the Tahasildar, Udala has passed an order on 25.07.2012, i.e., day before yesterday canceling the caste certificate granted to the petitioner initially. The said order of cancellation is appeal-able at the instance of the petitioner under the provision of Rule 9. It also transpires from the record of this case that the learned counsel for the State was directed on 06.07.2012 to obtain instruction as to why the previous direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition has not been complied with, pursuant to which Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State produced the record showing that the final order was passed on 25th July, 2012. It appears from the record produced, that by order dated 17.07.2012 the Tahasildar has recorded that the hearing is closed and the final order dated 25.07.2012 has mentioned that he has heard both the sides and concluded that the petitioner did not produce any new document and rather stated that documents filed earlier are sufficient. The documents filed by the petitioner being two affidavits, his show cause and as stated by Mr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner, a copy of the ROR under Annexure-1, has not been taken into consideration by the Tahasildar. Therefore, it appears that the Tahasildar only basing on the report of the Tahasildar, Udala has passed the final order. That was not the spirit of the order passed earlier by this Court where this Court wanted that the principles of natural justice should be adhered to. Therefore, it appears that the Tahasildar only basing on the report of the Tahasildar, Udala has passed the final order. That was not the spirit of the order passed earlier by this Court where this Court wanted that the principles of natural justice should be adhered to. It also transpires from the record that the copy of the report submitted by the Tahasildar, Udala which was based on the report of the R.I., Udala was not supplied to the petitioner at the time of hearing. Ordinarily, when an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court is not to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution., However, when there is gross violation of principles of natural justice, even if an alternative efficacious remedy is available, it is always open for this' Court to exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for doing substantial justice. In view of the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Tahasildar, Nilagiri should have given opportunity to the petitioner by providing copy of the report received by him from the Tahasildar, Udala along with the report of the R.I. on the basis of which the Tahasildar gave his report and affording opportunity to the petitioner to call the concerned R.I. who gave adverse report for cross-examination. In view of the above, this Court finding that the case has already been disposed of on 25th July, 2012 has no hesitation to set aside the said order dated 25.07.2012 and direct the Tahasildar, Nilgiri to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by providing copy of the report of the Tahasildar, Udala to him and opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine to the said R.I. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that the Tahasildar, Nilagiri while disposing of the case afresh shall take into consideration the report along with the cross-examination made, the affidavits and the R.O.R. filed by the petitioner, as well as the submission made before him, while disposing of the proceeding. The proceeding shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the Tahasildar, Nilagiri. The Tahasildar while hearing the case shall also issue notice to Gaurahari Nayak on whose application the proceeding was initiated, who shall also be given opportunity to take part in the hearing. The proceeding shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the Tahasildar, Nilagiri. The Tahasildar while hearing the case shall also issue notice to Gaurahari Nayak on whose application the proceeding was initiated, who shall also be given opportunity to take part in the hearing. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Petition disposed of.