ORDER : 1. The election of Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Korba and Councillors of all the wards of Municipal Corporation, Korba including Ward No.7 was held on 29-12-2014. The petitioner herein/returned candidate and respondent No.4 herein/the election petitioner also contested the election for the post of Councillor from Ward No.7, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman). The petitioner was declared elected on 4-1-2015 against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman). 2. The election petitioner/respondent No.4 herein in order to question the election of the returned candidate/petitioner herein filed election petition under Section 441 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956'), stating inter alia that Ward No.7 is reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman) and the returned candidate/petitioner herein does not belong to Scheduled Caste and on the basis of forged provisional caste certificate, her nomination was accepted and she was declared elected, and therefore, her election from Ward No.7 as Councillor be declared void and the election petitioner be declared elected as Councillor from Ward No.7 of Municipal Corporation, Korba. Issues were framed on 26-11-2015, thereafter, the returned candidate filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stating inter alia that the returned candidate/petitioner has won the election by submitting forged caste certificate and verification of caste can be done only by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee constituted under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013') and therefore, the election petition as framed and filed is barred by law and the election petition be dismissed as not maintainable. 3. The election petitioner filed her reply opposing the said application stating inter alia that the same has been filed to stall the hearing of the election petition and the election petition as framed and filed under Section 441 of the Act of 1956 is maintainable in law and as such, the said application deserves to be dismissed. 4. The Election Tribunal (District Judge, Korba) by its impugned order rejected the said application finding no merit in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 5. 4. The Election Tribunal (District Judge, Korba) by its impugned order rejected the said application finding no merit in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the order rejecting her application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the returned candidate/petitioner herein has filed this revision under Section 441-F of the Act of 1956 read with Section 115 of the CPC stating inter alia that the order passed by the Election Tribunal rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is unsustainable, as the same suffers from jurisdictional error and order impugned deserves to be set-aside. 6. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the returned candidate/ petitioner herein, would submit that jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to hear the matter relating to verification of social status certificate is barred by Section 16 of the Act of 2013 which clearly provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain, to continue or to decide any suit or proceeding or shall pass any decree or order or execute wholly or partly any decree or order, if the claim involved in such suit or proceeding, or the passing of such decree or order or such execution would, in any way, be contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2013. He would further submit that such a legal position has been recognized by a decision of this Court in the matter of Rajkumari v. State of C.G. & others, 2008(2) C.G.L.J. 45 whereby the election of Sarpanch was set aside by the designated officer {Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)} and caste certificate of the returned candidate/Sarpanch was held to be bad and in the writ petition filed by the returned candidate/Sarpanch, this Court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 and other cases directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to refer the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for decision on the caste of the petitioner therein. Therefore, the case of the petitioner herein is similarly situated and accordingly, the impugned order be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given thoughtful consideration to the facts of the present case and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. Therefore, the case of the petitioner herein is similarly situated and accordingly, the impugned order be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given thoughtful consideration to the facts of the present case and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. It would be appropriate to notice the issues framed by the Election Tribunal in this regard. ¼1½ D;k xSj ;kfpdkdrkZ dza0 1 ds }kjk uxj ikfydk fuxe dksjck ftyk dksjck ds okMZ dza0 7 tks fd vuqlwfpr tkfr ¼efgyk½ gsrq vkjf{kr lhV gS] ds ik"kZn in gsrq o"kZ 2014 esa fuokZpu ds fy, uke funsZ'ku i= esa viuk tkfr oxZ vuqlwfpr tkfr dk gksuk mYys[k djrs gq, vlR; tkudkjh fn;k x;k \ ¼2½ D;k xSj ;kfpdkdrkZ dza0 1 }kjk vius vuqlwfpr tkfr oxZ esa vkus laca/kh dwV jfpr nLrkost is'k fd;k x;kA ¼3½ D;k xSj ;kfpdkdrkZ dza0 1 N-x-jkT; }kjk vf/klwfpr vuqlwfpr oxZ ls fHkUu tkfr esa vkrh gS \ ¼4½ D;k xSj ;kfpdkdrkZ dza0 1 uxj ikfyd fuxe dksjck ftyk dksjck ds okMZ dza0 7 tks fd vuqlwfpr tkfr ¼efgyk½ gsrq vkjf{kr lhV gS] mDr tkfr oxZ ls fHkUu tkfroxZ dk gksus ds vk/kkj ij xSj ;kfpdkdrkZ dza0 1 dk fuokZpu 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS \ ¼5½ lgk;rk ,oa O;; \ 9. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to notice that Part IXA was introduced in the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 with effect from 1-6-1993 by which “the Municipalities” was brought in Article 243Q of the Constitution of India which provides that there shall be constituted in every State, a Nagar Panchayat for a transitional area; a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, in accordance with the provisions of that Part of the Constitution. Composition of Municipalities; Reservation of seats; Duration of Municipalities, etc.; Disqualifications for membership have been provided in that Chapter of the Constitution. Article 243ZA of the Constitution of India provides Elections to the Municipalities as under:- “243ZA. Elections to the Municipalities.—(1)The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Municipalities shall be vested in the State Election Commission referred to in article 243K. Article 243ZA of the Constitution of India provides Elections to the Municipalities as under:- “243ZA. Elections to the Municipalities.—(1)The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Municipalities shall be vested in the State Election Commission referred to in article 243K. (2) Subject to provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Municipalities.” 10. Thus, the Legislature of a State may, by virtue of Article 243ZA(2) of the Constitution, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Municipalities. Article 243ZG of the Constitution provides Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters by providing as under:- “243ZG. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.—Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,— (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243ZF shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.” 11.Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution provides that no election to the Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. Thus, there is a constitutional mandate that election to the Municipality including the Municipal Corporation shall only be called in question by an election petition and in the manner as provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. 12. The State Legislature has enacted the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Part-XII Chapter XXXIX of the Act of 1956 provides for Election Petitions. Section 441 of the Act of 1956 mandates, no election or nomination under this Act shall be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provision of this section. 12. The State Legislature has enacted the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Part-XII Chapter XXXIX of the Act of 1956 provides for Election Petitions. Section 441 of the Act of 1956 mandates, no election or nomination under this Act shall be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provision of this section. A detailed provision has been for trying up the election petition and Grounds for declaring elections or nominations to be void has been provided in Section 441-B of the said Act. Section 441-C of the Act of 1956 provides Procedure to be followed in disposal of election petition. Thus, the remedy of election petition to the election petitioner is in accordance with Section 441 of the Act of 1956 read with Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution of India, as such, it is a complete code in itself. 13. The short question for consideration would be, whether the remedy of election petition provided under Section 441 of the Act of 1956 to challenge the election as per the mandate of Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution can be held to be barred by virtue of Section 16 of the Act of 2013 and if the Election Tribunal is required to consider and decide the question whether the returned candidate was entitled to contest the election from reserved seat. 14. The Act of 2013 is an Act to protect the interest of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of citizens in the State from those who fraudulently obtains false Social Status Certification, certifying that the person belongs to these sections of populations; and to provide for punishment for issuing and obtaining false Social Status Certification; and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 15. Section 7 of the Act of 2013 provides for High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee by the State Government and such a Committee has been constituted by the State of Chhattisgarh on 22-8-2013. Section 16 of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of the court with respect to any suit or proceeding which is in any way contrary to the provisions of the Act. 16. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner/returned candidate is that Section 16 of the Act of 2013 would bar the continuance of election petition as framed and filed under Section 441 of the Act of 1956. 16. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner/returned candidate is that Section 16 of the Act of 2013 would bar the continuance of election petition as framed and filed under Section 441 of the Act of 1956. Therefore, the learned Election Tribunal has committed legal error in not dismissing the election petition, as determination/verification of caste of the returned candidate is involved and that can be done only by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee under Section 7 of the Act of 2013 and which was held so by this Court in Rajkumari (supra) by a coordinate Bench. 17. Doubtlessly and concededly, election to any Municipality can be questioned only by way of an election petition presented to such authority in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State, as per mandate of Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution of India. In this case, it is Section 441 of the Act of 1956 under which the election to Municipality can be questioned. The election petitioner, in this case, has also opted the remedy of election petition as per the mandate of Section 441 of the Act of 1956 read with Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution of India. 18. The remedy of election petition, as stated-above, is a constitutional remedy in terms of Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution read with Section 441 of the Act of 1956 whereas, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee is a quasijudicial body constituted under the statutory provision contained in the Act of 2013, to verify social status certificate. 19. It is well settled law that in case of conflict between the constitutional provision and the statutory provision, the statutory provision has to give way to the constitutional provision. The Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Tanwar and another v. State of H.P. and others, (2005) 2 SCC 104 struck the proposition as under:- “....... In other words, no statutory provision can stand in the way of constitutional provision in case of conflict between them.” 20. The Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Tanwar and another v. State of H.P. and others, (2005) 2 SCC 104 struck the proposition as under:- “....... In other words, no statutory provision can stand in the way of constitutional provision in case of conflict between them.” 20. Therefore, in my opinion, the remedy provided under the Act of 2013 cannot prevail to bar the election petitioner to invoke the remedy of election petition in terms of the constitutional provision i.e. Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution read with Section 441 of the Act of 1956 and the Election Tribunal is empowered to decide all questions including the question as to whether the returned candidate was entitled to contest from the seat reserved for reserved category candidate. 21. There is an additional reason for taking such a view. A judgment on an election petition is not a judgment in rem. It is merely an adjudication of a statutory challenge on the question whether election of returned candidate is liable to voided on any of the grounds available under the Act of 1956 as the only question to be decided in the election petition is whether the returned candidate was entitled to contest the election on the reserved seat herein i.e. Scheduled Caste (Woman) which has been challenged in the election petition. An election petition is not a suit between two persons. 22. The following observation made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju v. Nimmaka Jaya Raju and others, (2006) 1 SCC 212 may be usefully and gainfully noticed herein:- “10. ....... An election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 cannot be held to lead to an adjudication which declares, defines or otherwise determines the status of a person or a jural relation of that person to the world generally. It is merely an adjudication of a statutory challenge on the question whether the election of the successful candidate is liable to be voided on any of the grounds available under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is not an action for establishing the status of a person. It is not an action initiated by a person to have his status established or his jural relationship to the world generally established, to borrow the language of Spencer Bower. It is not an action for establishing the status of a person. It is not an action initiated by a person to have his status established or his jural relationship to the world generally established, to borrow the language of Spencer Bower. No doubt in EP No. 13 of 1983, the question was whether the election petitioner therein who alleged that the appellant before us was not qualified to contest as a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, in a constituency reserved for that tribe and to that extent, having relationship to the status of the appellant. In such an action under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 what is decided is whether the election petitioner had succeeded in establishing that the successful candidate belonged to a caste or community, that was not included in the Scheduled Tribes Order. In a case where the election petitioner failed to establish his claim, it could not be said that it amounted to a declaration of the status of the respondent in that election petition, the successful candidate, and that such a finding on status would operate as a judgment in rem so as to bind the whole world. It is also not one of the judgments specifically recognized by Section 41 of the Evidence Act. It has been held that the challenge to an election is only a statutory right. An election petition is not a suit of a general nature or a representative action for adjudication of the status of a person. ......” 23. Their Lordships have further held that an election petition is not a suit between two persons but is a proceeding in which the constituency itself is the principal party interested and observed as under:- “...... An election is an essential part of the democratic process. An election petition is not a suit between two persons but is a proceeding in which the constituency itself is the principal party interested. ......” 24. In Rajkumari (supra), election of the returned candidate (Sarpanch) was set aside by the designated Election Tribunal on the ground that he did not belong to Lohara community which is notified Scheduled Tribe in the State of Bihar but is not notified as Scheduled Tribe community in the State of Chhattisgarh. By relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and State of Maharashtra & Ors. By relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr, 2006 AIR SCW 6093 the coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the dispute with regard to caste of a person can only be decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee alone and observed as under:- “7. ...... The Supreme Court has clearly held that the dispute with regard to the caste of a person can be decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee alone. The Supreme Court has further given the procedure asto how the Caste Scrutiny Committee should decide the dispute. In view of well settled principle of law, the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Pratappur has exceeded his jurisdiction in declaring the fact that the petitioner was not a Scheduled Tribe. 8. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 11.4.2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3/Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Pratappur is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Pratappur for deciding the matter afresh after decision on the caste of the petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Pratappur, is accordingly directed to refer the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for their decision in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another (supra) and the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr. (supra).” 25. Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India also provides that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any Law made by the Legislature of a State. v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr. (supra).” 25. Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India also provides that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any Law made by the Legislature of a State. Therefore, in view of the express bar contained in the above-stated constitutional provision, this Court is of the considered opinion that determination/verification of caste of a returned candidate can be done by the Election Tribunal for limited purpose to find out whether the returned candidate was entitled to contest election from the reserved seat or not, otherwise, to hold that the Election Tribunal cannot decide the statutory challenge to the election independently and without referring the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee the election petition would not be maintainable, it will run contrary to the express provision contained in Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution. Upon thoughtful consideration, I find myself unable to agree with the opinion expressed by the coordinate Bench in Rajkumari (supra) and such opinion requires reconsideration. 26. The procedure to be followed in case of conflict has been laid down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel and others, AIR 1968 SC 372 (1) in which it has been held that if coordinate Bench takes a different view from a view already prevailing in that Court, then coordinate Bench has to refer the matter to the larger Bench by opining as under:- “10. ........ When it appears to a Single Judge or a Division Bench that there are conflicting decisions of the same Court, or there are decisions of other High Courts in India which are strongly persuasive and take a different view from the view which prevails in his or their High Court, or that a question of law of importance arises in the trial of a case, the Judge or the Bench passes an order that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a request to form a special or Full Bench to hear and dispose of the case or the questions raised in the case.” 27. Rule 32 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 lays down the procedure for referring any proceeding, if it is considered that decision in a proceeding involves reconsideration of a decision of coordinate Bench. 28. In exercise of power conferred by Rule 32(2)(ii) read with Rule 32(5) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007, it is hereby recommended that papers of this proceeding (Civil Revision No.62/2016 – Smt. Babita Balmiki v. Amrika Bai and three others), be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration and appropriate orders for constituting and placing it before a Larger Bench on the following “stated question”: -- “Whether the Election Tribunal under Section 441 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 is entitled to consider and decide the question as to whether the returned candidate was entitled to contest from the reserved seat (Scheduled Caste) which includes the question of verification/determination of caste of the returned candidate for the limited purpose of deciding validity of election or the Election Tribunal's jurisdiction is barred under Section 16 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 in that regard and the matter has necessarily to be referred to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee under Section 7 of the Act of 2013 for that purpose?”