ORDER 1. Challenging notices dated 18.03.2014, 03.04.2014, 22.04.2014 and 21.05.2014, the Writ Petition was filed however, during the pendency of the Writ Petition final order dated 21.07.2014 has been passed and therefore, an Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 3865 of 2014 was filed seeking permission to amend the Writ Petition for challenging the final order dated 21.07.2014. Vide order dated 04.08.2014, I.A. No. 3865 of 2014 has been allowed and thus, the said order is also under challenge in the present proceeding. 2. The brief facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details may be stated thus: The petitioner contested election for Ward Councillor from Ward No. 26, Nagar Parishad, Medininagar, Palamau the election held in the year, 2013 and she was declared elected. On a complaint made by one Shri Naresh Prasad on 26.04.2013 alleging that the petitioner has impersonated herself in the name of Smt. Kiran Kumari W/o Santosh Kumar S/o Yadunandan Sharma, House No. 09, BID No. KGV 1013739, an enquiry was ordered in the matter and therefore, the District Election Officer (M)cum Deputy Commissioner, Palamau was directed to conduct an enquiry in the matter. Enquiry reports dated 02.07.2013 and 15.07.2013 were submitted in which it was found that the petitioner has impersonated herself. In these facts cognizance of the matter was taken and notices were issued to the petitioner and as noticed above, order dated 21.07.2014 has been passed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 bringing on record copies of complaint, voters list etc. supporting the finding recorded in the enquiry reports dated 02.07.2013 and 15.07.2013 and the plea of the petitioner that she has not impersonated herself and she was bonafide candidate who was duly elected, has been resisted. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to enquiry report dated 02.07.2013 submitted that only because it has been recorded that in the voters list where the name of the petitioner appeared no photograph is pasted, it has been assumed that the petitioner has impersonated one Kiran Kumari W/o Santosh Kumar whose name appeared at Sl. No. 85 in Part 26/1. No. 85 in Part 26/1. Trying to demonstrate discrepancy in the enquiry reports dated 02.07.2013 and 15.07.2013, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the enquiry officer has assumed certain things against the petitioner and the reports so submitted suffer from factual error of record. He has also challenged the order passed by the State Election Commission on the ground of jurisdiction and submitted that under Rule 580 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, the State Election Commissioner would have no jurisdiction to pass an order of disqualification against the petitioner. 6. Per contra, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 referring to Article 243B of the Constitution has submitted that the State Legislature has been given power to frame rules and the State of Jharkhand has enacted Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 under Section 18(2) of which the State Election Commission is empowered to pass an order of disqualification. It is further stated that under Rule 112 of the Rules framed under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 such power is vested in the State Election Commissioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner participated in the proceeding on several dates and therefore, at this stage she cannot take the plea of jurisdiction. 7. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. It is a matter of record that two enquiries were held in the matter and reports dated 02.07.2013 and 15.07.2013 have been submitted. From perusal of report dated 02.07.2013, it appears that in Part 26/1 of the voters list at Sl. No. 94, the name of Kiran Kumari is mentioned. The house in which the said Kiran Kumari is residing belongs to one Shri Raj Kishore Sharma and upon enquiry from the said Raj Kishore Sharma, his wife Suryapati Devi and other neighbours namely, Sanjay Pandey, Suresh Sharma etc., it has been found that the said Shri Santosh Kumar S/o Yadunandan Sharma who is Bhumihar by caste, has been living in the house of Shri Raj Kishore Sharma for years together. The uncle of the said Kiran Kumari is one Suresh Sharma whose name is also recorded in the voters list. The uncle of the said Kiran Kumari is one Suresh Sharma whose name is also recorded in the voters list. The people in the vicinity have also informed that another Kiran Kumari W/o Santosh Kumar who is S/o Kailash Ram is residing with her sister Asha Devi. The husband of Asha Devi is Jagarnath who is residing in Ward No. 26 Part 26/1 and his name appeared at Sl. No. 195. After due enquiry in the matter, it has been found that the petitioner has impersonated herself and contested the election. This is not the case of the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to her. From the record of the case, it appears that adequate opportunity to defend herself was granted to the petitioner. 9. I do not find any error in the impugned order dated 21.07.2014 and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.