JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. W.P.(C) No.9090 of 2018 is filed by the elected candidate challenging the orders involving election dispute under the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, involving challenge to the order passed in Election Misc. Case No.2 of 2017 vide Annexure-1 and the Appellate Court's order in Election Appeal No.1 of 2018, vide Annexure-2, whereas W.P.(C) No.26164 of 2017 is filed involving the proceeding under Section 26(2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act disposed of as allowed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Keonjhar, vide Annexure-4 therein. It is needless to mention here that both the proceedings under the Grama Panchayat Act involved one election and also involved one elected candidate though involving proceeding under different provisions of law. Result of W.P.(C) No.26164 of 2017 since is dependent on the ultimate outcome involving W.P.(C) No.9090 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.9090 of 2018 is taken up first. 2. The short background involved in the cases is that pursuant to Election Notification No.4534 dated 18.11.2016 issued by the State Election Commissioner, election for the post of Sarpanch of Mareigaon Gram Panchayat under Hatadihi Panchayat Samiti was held on 13.02.2017 and the date of publication of result was 23.02.2017. The post of Sarpanch of Mareigaon Grama Panchayat was reserved for Scheduled Caste male candidates. Five persons namely Ajay Jena, Debendra Kumar Jena, Bhakta Sekhar Jena as well as the petitioner Nakula Charan Das submitted their nominations. On filing of the nomination, on the premises of doubt in the caste of Nakul Charan Das, petitioner in both the writ petitions, on 11.01.2017, the election petitioner submitted written objection before the Panchayat Level Election Officer-opp. party no.3 involving W.P.(C ) No.9090 of 2018 and on 18.01.2017, Kushanath Das prayed for cancellation of the nomination paper of the petitioner involved herein at the time of scrutiny on the premises that the petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.9090 of 2018 does not belong to Scheduled Caste. In spite of written objection and oral objection of Kushanath Das as well as his proposer and seconder, opp. party no.3 did not respond and there has been illegal acceptance of nomination paper of the petitioner. It is alleged that opp. party no.3 should have conducted enquiry in terms of Rule 25 of Orissa Gram Panchayat Rules and should have rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.9090 of 2018. party no.3 did not respond and there has been illegal acceptance of nomination paper of the petitioner. It is alleged that opp. party no.3 should have conducted enquiry in terms of Rule 25 of Orissa Gram Panchayat Rules and should have rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.9090 of 2018. It is further alleged that in spite of the present petitioner not being eligible to contest the election, he was permitted to contest the election and ultimately was also declared as the elected Sarpanch compelling the opposite party no.1 in W.P.(C) No.9090/2018 to file election petition with a prayer to declare acceptance of nomination paper of opp. party no.1 by opp. party no.3 for the post of Sarpanch, Mareigaon Gram Panchayat illegal and thereby also to declare the result of election as void. In the same application, the petitioner therein also sought for a declaration to declare the nearest candidate as the elected Sarpanch of the Mareigaon Gram Panchayat. Petitioner involving both the writ petitions appearing therein filed his show-cause inter alia contending that on the date of scrutiny of nomination paper, he was not aware about the presence of proposer and seconder and his nomination paper was duly accepted for being supported with the caste certificate. On 23.02.2017, the petitioner on declaration of the result of the election was declared elected obtaining highest number of valid votes. It is further contended that the petitioner not only belongs to Schedules Caste but in the Record of Right though mentioned his caste as "Pana Baishnab", but "Baishnab" is not the cast rather it is a title and designation attached therein. To explain his designation, the petitioner further submitted that during the period of Sri Chaitanya Dev, a devotee of Lord Bishnu, Baishnavism was spread and propagated by him in the State of West Bengal as well as Orissa. During the period, persons belonging to different categories became devotees of Lord Bishnu and his disciples were called as Baishnabs. Thus, the petitioner claimed that Bishnab is only his designation and has nothing to do with the caste of the petitioner "Pana". During the period, persons belonging to different categories became devotees of Lord Bishnu and his disciples were called as Baishnabs. Thus, the petitioner claimed that Bishnab is only his designation and has nothing to do with the caste of the petitioner "Pana". It is on the premises that the caste of the petitioner is "Pana" and being an item in the schedule of the presidential notification, the petitioner claimed to be Scheduled Caste and thus claimed that he has been rightly permitted to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch. Petitioner appearing as opposite party in the election petition strongly relied on the Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority. 3. Considering the rival contention of the parties, trial Court involving Election Misc. Case No.2 of 2017 framed the following issues. (i) Whether the O.P. No.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste? (ii) Whether the nomination paper of O.P. No.1 has been improperly accepted? (iii) Whether the acceptance of nomination paper of O.P. No.1 by O.P. No.3 for the post of Sarpanch of Mareigaon Gram Panchayat is illegal, unjust and Invalid ? (iv) Whether on dtd.23.02.2017 declaring O.P. No.1 as the Sarpach of Mareigaon Gram Panchayat by O.P. No.2 is void? (v) Whether the petitioner can be declared as Sarpanch being the nearest candidate of Mareigaon Gram Panchayat? (vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief and the O.P. No.1 is liable to pay any cost? 4. To establish their respective case, the election petitionerthe present opp. party no.1 examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 including himself himself as P.W.4. This apart, the opp. party no.1 herein, the election petitioner also exhibited Ext. 1 to Ext.4/27. Similarly, the writ petitioner being opp. party no.1 in the trial Court examined D.W.1 to D.W.9 and marked documents as Exts. A to Exts. W/1. Considering the materials available on record, both oral and documentary, pleading of the parties and the submissions of the respective parties, the Election Tribunal disposing the Election Misc. Case No.2 of 2017 held as follows :- "From the aforesaid discussions with respect to different issues, it is clear that, O.P. No.1 does not belong to scheduled caste and accordingly he is disqualified to be elected under the provision of this Act and his nomination paper was improperly accepted and accordingly declaring him as Sarpanch of Mareigaon Gram Panchayat on dtd.23.02.2017 is void. Hence, ordered." Thereby declaring the election of the present petitioner as bad in law and that his nomination paper was illegally accepted. On appeal, the Election Appeal No.1 of 2018 at the instance of the present petitioner, the opp. party no.1 in the original proceeding, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal in confirmation with the findings of the original authority. At the same time, the appellate authority consequent upon election of the opp. party no.1 in the election proceeding-the present petitioner being declared void, further declared that a casual vacancy is created in respect of the post of Sarpanch of the Mareigaon Gram Panchayat under Hatadihi Grama Panchayat Samiti. 5. Challenging the orders passed by both the original authority as well as the appellate authority, Sri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the elected candidate lost in both the forums, on reiteration of his case in both the forums and taking this Court to the materials on record as well as the evidence available in the original proceeding contended that for the allegation made questioning the election of the return candidate, it was necessary on the part of the opp. party no.1 to establish with conclusive material regarding the disqualification involving the return candidate. Sri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, thus, contented that there is no satisfaction of the provision of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 by the election petitioner-the opp. party 1 in W.P.(C ) No.9090 of 2018 herein. Further, taking this Court to the caste certificate, vide Ext. A and the register of the year, Ext.B regarding issuance of caste certificate in favour of the elected candidate, Sri Mishra, leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless there is challenge to the caste certificate vide Ext. A so also Ext.B , the contents in the Register issuing caste certificate and there is a declaration by competent Court of law declaring both the actions as illegal, there was no occasion for the Courts below to disbelieve the certificate and decide the case against the petitioner, the elected candidate. Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner further taking this Court to the crossexamination of the Tahasildar, Hatadihi, P.W.7 submitted that for the clear evidence of P.W.7, there was no question of disbelieving the certificate at Ext.A. Further, for the existence of the Caste certificate vide Ext. Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner further taking this Court to the crossexamination of the Tahasildar, Hatadihi, P.W.7 submitted that for the clear evidence of P.W.7, there was no question of disbelieving the certificate at Ext.A. Further, for the existence of the Caste certificate vide Ext. A, there is also no possibility of a view declaring that Ext.A is a fake certificate, particularly, in absence of any challenge to such certificate in competent court of law. Referring to decisions reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 94 , 2011 (II) CLR 1036, and further decision in 2018 (II) CLR (S.C) 404, Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for clear decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decisions, documents at Ext.A and B involving the caste certificate could not be questioned involving an election dispute and the Caste Scrutiny Committee is the only competent authority to take up such issues. For the demonstration of the case of the petitioner that Baishnaba is only a designation and mere mentioning of Pana Baishnab in some documents does not reflect Caste of a person. For no support of Amin report, Sri Mishra also submitted that documents at Ext. 5 and Ext.6, further being questioned by the election petitioner, these two documents had no relevance in the determination of the case involving the election petition and thus contended that the documents have been wrongly relied by the trial Court. Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand taking this Court to the document at Ext. K contended that for the information therein that there is no limitation period involving the validity of Caste Certificate and the Ext. A being the true/valid original one, there was no scope for the trial Court or the appellate Court to discard such certificate. Further, taking to the document at Ext. C, Sri Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is further material placed in the trial court to establish that petitioner was getting some benefits by virtue of his belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is also contended by Sri Mishra that for Ext.D establishing the petitioner's availing the post-matric stipend as a student of Baula Junior College in the years, 1986-87 and 1987-88, there is ample material to establish the case of the election petitioner. It is also contended by Sri Mishra that for Ext.D establishing the petitioner's availing the post-matric stipend as a student of Baula Junior College in the years, 1986-87 and 1987-88, there is ample material to establish the case of the election petitioner. For nonavailability of register of a year, Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this could not have been facilitated drawing the conclusion that no caste certificate was ever issued in that year. Similarly, taking to other documents, vide Exts.A, B, H, J, K, L, R, M, N & P. Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the number of documents referred to hereinabove establishing the claim of the petitioner belonging to "Pana" as Scheduled Caste, Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that trial Court failed in appreciating such material evidence. Referring to the Gazette also, Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there has been no proper consideration of the information to the Gazettee by the trial Court. While challenging the order of the trial Court on the same premises, Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner also attacked the order passed by the appellate Court and ultimately contended that for the appellate Court entering into a different consideration, not being available in the trial Court, the appellate Court's judgment also otherwise remains bad and cannot be construed to be the judgment in concurrence of the Trial Court. In the above circumstances and taking this Court to the decisions reported in AIR 1965 S.C 1269 , AIR 1995 SC 94 , 2011 (II) CLR (SC) 1036 & 2018 (II) CLR (SC)-404, Sri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed this Court for interfering in both the impugned orders and setting aside the same thereby allowing the writ bearing W.P.(C) No.9090 of 2018 and for same reason, this Court should also interfere in the impugned order involving W.P.(C ) No.26164 of 2017 and set aside the impugned order at Annexure-4 involving this writ petition. 6. In his opposition, Shri A.P. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opp. 6. In his opposition, Shri A.P. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opp. parties in both the writ applications on reiteration of the election petitioner's plea in the trial Court and further in the appeal as the contesting respondent while opposing each of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the documents relied on by the evidence of plaintiff therein, the documents Ext.1 to Ext.4/27 and taking this Court, particularly to the exhibits at his client's instance in the trial Court submitted that for the material available on record, the observation of the trial Court is in proper consideration of the material available on record. Referring to the documents exhibited by the elected candidate in the trial Court, Ext.A and the evidence thrown by the Tahasildar, Hatadihi clearly deposing in his cross-examination that there is no such Register available for issuance of such certificate, Sri Bose, learned counsel for contesting opp. party submitted that there is no existence of any such Caste Certificate. Sri Bose thus contended that there is right appreciation of the issue involved by both the Courts below. Taking this Court to the documents at Ext.B, the letter of the Tahasildar, Hatadihi indicating that there is no availability of Misc. Case Certificate registered for the year 1989 and further the Register of the year 2009 clearly disclosing at serial no.69, the elected candidate belongs to Pana Bishnab Caste and further for nonavailability of Caste "Pana Baishnab" in the schedule of the Presidential Notification. Sri Bose, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opp. parties contended that there is also right appreciation of this aspect by both the courts below thereby took the plea that there is no infirmity in the order of the original authority or the appellate authority requiring any interference in both the impugned orders by this Court. Sri Bose, further taking this Court to the findings of both the Courts below submitted that for the detailed discussions and the findings of both the forums having based on reasonable assessment, both the impugned orders cannot be held to be otherwise bad. Sri Bose, learned counsel for the contesting opp. parties lastly submitted that there being a concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, there is no scope for interfering in either of the impugned orders. Sri Bose, learned counsel for the contesting opp. parties lastly submitted that there being a concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, there is no scope for interfering in either of the impugned orders. Besides taking this Court to the observations of the Collector in the disposal of the 26 (2) of the Grama Panchayat Act, involving W.P.(C) No.26164 of 2017, Sri Bose, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opp. parties in both the writ petitions submitted that there being a common view of both the Courts below and the Collector, it appears there is reasonable consideration by at least three authorities involving the dispute involved herein. In the circumstances, Sri Bose, learned counsel for the contesting opp. parties prayed this Court for dismissing both the writ petitions. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, Kushanath Das, O.P.1 involving W.P.(C) No.9090/2018 filed the election dispute bearing Civil Miscellaneous Case No.2/2017, inter alia, on the ground that Nakul Charan Das, petitioner involving both the writ petitions the elected candidate involving the post of Sarapanch, Mareigaon Gram Panchyat on the premises of illegal acceptance of his nomination paper by the Election Officer in spite of the fact that the petitioner herein, i.e. the elected Sarapanch belonging to Pana Baisnab Caste, which did not form part of the Gazette Notification involving Scheduled Castes. It is also alleged that in spite of written objection by Kushanath Das, O.P.3 did not consider such aspect of the matter and allowed Nakul Charan Das to contest the election and got elected. The election of Nakul Charan Das was contested on the premises that said Nakul Charan Das has filed his nomination involving a fake caste certificate showing him falsely belonging to Pana Caste. To establish such case, it also appears, Kushanath Das also produced several documents in proof of his claim. In his opposition Nakul Charan Das while contradicting the claim of Kushanath Das apart from relying on certain documents to prove the following specific plea :- "(a) The O.P.No.1 during his study was availing stipend from the Govt. as a student of S.C. Category of Caste "Pana". (b) Tahasildar, Hatadihi has also issued Caste Certificates in favour of O.P.1 mentioning his caste "Pana" in the year 1989 & 2009. (c) Various R.S.Ds. as a student of S.C. Category of Caste "Pana". (b) Tahasildar, Hatadihi has also issued Caste Certificates in favour of O.P.1 mentioning his caste "Pana" in the year 1989 & 2009. (c) Various R.S.Ds. were obtained by the O.P.1 and his father Ananda Das from different persons belonging to S.C. Category having their caste "Pana" and no permission U/s 22 of OLR Act were required for the execution of the sale deeds as the O.P.1 and his father belong to S.C.Category. (d) Various mutation R.O.Rs. were also issued by the Tahasildar, Hatadihi basing upon R.S.Ds. obtained by the O.P.1 and his father from persons belonging to S.C. Category. (e) Permission U/s.22 of O.L.R. Act is required for execution of R.S.D. by a person belongs to "Pana Baishnab" (S.C.) in favour of General Caste Person. (f) In the S.E.B.C. list prepared by Govt. of India after proper verification the caste of O.P.1 has been recorded as S.C. (g) The Caste of O.P.1 being "Pana" comes under S.C.Category as basing upon F.I.R. lodged by him against a person of General Category a case under prevention of Atrocity Act was registered against that person coming under general category, in which the General Caste person faced trial to the court of the District & Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Keonjhar. (h) That O.P. No.1 availed compensation from the Govt. as he was defamed in the society." In the background of evidence and the material produced by both the parties and the documents exhibited by the respective parties, this Court finds, Kushanath Das has produced six witnesses and filed documents, vide Ext.1 to Ext.4/27. Similarly Nakul Charan Das, the elected candidate contesting, petitioner herein in both the writ petitions produced nine witnesses besides exhibiting, vide Exts.A to W/1. For the controversy involved herein, this Court entering into the evidence of the respective parties finds, P.W.1 in his chief while claiming that Nakul Charan Das filed his nomination paper with fake certificate and for that he was Pana Baisnab, caste certificate involving Nakul Charan Das remained ungenuine, and therefore, there is illegal acceptance of nomination of Nakul Charan Das but did not rely on any document in his evidence. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that at the filing of nomination paper of Nakul Charan Das, he has not verified his documents and he cannot say as to what document he had filed at the time of nomination. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that at the filing of nomination paper of Nakul Charan Das, he has not verified his documents and he cannot say as to what document he had filed at the time of nomination. But again in paragraph-11, this very witness submitted that Nakul Charan Das had filed caste certificate incurred from the Tahasil. During cross-examination by O.Ps.2 & 3, this witness again said that no caste certificate of Nakul Charan Das was filed at the time of scrutiny. P.W.2 in his chief simply said Nakul Charan Das was not a person belonging to Pana Caste but a man belonging to Pana Baisnab Caste. In cross-examination by O.P.1 this witness has simply said, he has not seen the Caste Certificate of Patta of Nakul Charan Das. P.W.3 in his chief while admitting that he was the seconder in the nomination of Kushanath Das and deposing that Kushanath Das and others submitted objection disputing the nomination of Nakul Charan Das and that there is illegal acceptance of nomination in spite of objection involving Caste of Nakul Charan Das relied on Record of Rights to establish that he belongs to Pana Baisnab. In cross-examination this witness submitted that in the Caste Certificate of Nakul Charan Das was mentioned as Pana Baisnab and of Scheduled Caste category. P.W.4, Kushanath Das himself while deposing that he had made objection to O.P.3 on filing of nomination by Nakul Charan Das attempted to establish his case by showing light from the Record of Rights bearing Nos.2, 3 & 4 of Chandiabiranchipur. He also filed orders in Mutation Case No.1375/2016 along with Amin's report and notice then copy of another mutation order in Mutation Case No.1364/16 along with Amin's report ad notice. He also took support of a reply of Public Information Officer on his application under the R.T.I. Act and further a copy of the disputed Caste Certificate involving Misc. Case No.486/1989, copy of affidavit of O.P.1, Nakul Charan Das and copy of High School Certification of Nakul Charan Das. This witness also relied on a letter of the P.I.O., Hatadihi Tahasil, which contains an up-to-date list of S.C. & S.T. Caste and attempted to establish that Nakul Charan Das belongs to Pana Baisnab by Caste and thereby does not belong to Scheduled Caste. In cross-examination also this witness deposed on the basis of document appearing at Ext.1 to Ext.13. This witness also relied on a letter of the P.I.O., Hatadihi Tahasil, which contains an up-to-date list of S.C. & S.T. Caste and attempted to establish that Nakul Charan Das belongs to Pana Baisnab by Caste and thereby does not belong to Scheduled Caste. In cross-examination also this witness deposed on the basis of document appearing at Ext.1 to Ext.13. P.W.5 while deposing rested on Exts.2, 2/1, 3, 13 & 14. He was appearing as a witness in the capacity of P.I.O.-cum-Additional Tahasildar of Hatadihi Tahasil. O.P.6 appeared as W.E.O.-cumP.I.O., Hatadihi. Nakul Charan Das to establish his case in his deposition as D.W.1 in chief relying on Record of Rights involving him and his father submitted that their Caste has been mentioned as Pana Baisnab and further deposed that Pana is the Caste whereas Baisnab is a designation. Narrating the visit of Chaitanya Dev to the State of Odisha, this witness attempted to submit that the disciple of Chaitanya Dev is called as "Baisnab" in spite of their Caste, which he claimed to be a designation attached to his Caste. Relying on further document submitted by him, Nakul Charan Das as witness submitted that for his belonging to S.C. category, there has been issuance of Caste Certificate for over years also particularly in 1989 and 2009 showing him to be belonging to Scheduled Caste. This witness also relied on some purchase of land by his father and himself in the capacity of their Caste being Pana and for this reason, there was also no requirement for permission from the competent authority for the execution of sale deeds. This witness also relied on various Mutation Record of Rights issued by the Tahasildar, Hatadihi basing upon R.S.Ds. are obtained by this witness as well as his father from the persons belonging to S.C. category. Relying on S.E.C.C. List prepared by the Government of India, whereas his Caste has been mentioned as Scheduled Caste and also relying on some F.I.Rs. at his instance, there have been some cases involving Section 3(1)(x) of S.C. & S.T. ( P & A) Act were registered. Nakul Charan Das also deposed in his evidence that for the pendency of the Mutation Case relied on by Kushanath Das, no inference can be drawn from such document. at his instance, there have been some cases involving Section 3(1)(x) of S.C. & S.T. ( P & A) Act were registered. Nakul Charan Das also deposed in his evidence that for the pendency of the Mutation Case relied on by Kushanath Das, no inference can be drawn from such document. The other witnesses at the instance of Nakul Charan Das since simply supported the claim of Nakul Charan Das, it is not necessary to take note of their statements to avoid unnecessary repetition except indicating herein that Nakul Charan Das has exhibited through his chief Exts.A to W/1. 8. Now coming to scan the documents filed by the respective parties from Ext.1, this Court finds, this is a document involving the objection of Kushanath Das requesting not to accept the nomination of Nakul Charan Das along with procedure regarding scrutiny of nomination. Ext.2 is the reply to R.T.I. application only indicating that the sub-caste of Pana Baisnab is not included in the list of S.C. Community. This Court observes here, the observation of the P.I.O.-cum-Additional Tahasildar is of no use for the reason that the Caste Certificate produced by Nakul Charan Das has a clear indication of his Caste as Pana and belonging to Scheduled Caste. Similarly, Ext.4 is a list of S.C. & S.T., at serial no.69 of which it is indicated that Pana as Scheduled Caste. Exts.5 & 6 involving Nakul Charan Das as the applicant in a Mutation Case on the basis of which he belongs to Pana Caste and rejecting the Mutation Case on the premises that Pana Baisnab does not belong to Scheduled Caste category and also there is no permission from the competent authority under the O.L.R. Act though the enquiry report attached therein discloses the applicant's caste as Pana Baisnab. Ext.7 is a Record of Right of one Ananta Prasad Das belonging to Pana Baisnab. Similarly Ext.8 also does not belong to Nakul Charan Das. Ext.9 again a document involving Ananta Prasad Das. Ext.10 is a document indicating that the particular Constituency was reserved for Scheduled Castes. Ext.11 is the Election Notification giving the time schedule therein for the election involved herein. Ext.12 is a guideline regarding scrutiny of nomination paper. Exts.13 & 14 are the replies by the P.I.O. indicating that Nakul Charan Das has not obtained any Caste Certificate from the Tahasildar, Hatadihi since long. 9. Ext.11 is the Election Notification giving the time schedule therein for the election involved herein. Ext.12 is a guideline regarding scrutiny of nomination paper. Exts.13 & 14 are the replies by the P.I.O. indicating that Nakul Charan Das has not obtained any Caste Certificate from the Tahasildar, Hatadihi since long. 9. Coming to scan the documents produced by Nakul Charan Das in support of his case that he belongs to Scheduled Caste, it appears, vide Ext.A, Nakul Charan Das produced a Caste Certificate issued involving Miscellaneous Certificate Case No.486/1989 showing his Caste to be Pana and further indicating that it is recognized as Scheduled Caste under the Order, 1950 and the Amendment Order, 1978. Ext.B is a letter issued by the P.I.O., Hatadihi Tahasil, who has issued documents at Exts.13 & 14 indicating that basing on the Scheduled Caste Certificate Register 2009, Caste Certificate was issued in favour of Nakul Charan Das even though there is no availability of Miscellaneous Certificate Register for the Year, 1989. This Court referring to twenty-six documents more particularly observes that there is no dispute that a Caste Certificate indicating Nakul Charan Das belonging to Scheduled Caste has been issued by the competent authority. Nonavailability of the Miscellaneous Certificate Register for the Year, 1989 cannot take away the acceptance of the Caste Certificate in favour of Nakul Charan Das since 1989 particularly when a Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority very much exhibited and without objection. Again coming to the Caste Certificate at Ext.B bearing Case No.69/CAS/2009, this Court finds, said Nakul Charan Das is again issued with the Caste Certificate showing him to be belonging to Pana Caste with clear indicator that Pana Caste is recognized as Scheduled Caste under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. May be this Certificate was granted for the purpose of filing nomination of M.L.A. candidature but the fact that Nakul Charan Das belonging to Pana and further recognized as a Scheduled Caste cannot be lost sight of. Considering Ext.C this Court finds, this is a Certificate issued by the Headmaster of Panchayat High School, Mareigaon with clear disclosure that Nakul Charan Das was a student of Panchayat High School, Mareigaon from Class-VII to Class-X and according to the Admission Register, he belongs to Scheduled Caste. Not only that Nakul Charan Das was also granted pre-Matric stipend by virtue of his belonging to Scheduled Caste. Not only that Nakul Charan Das was also granted pre-Matric stipend by virtue of his belonging to Scheduled Caste. Coming to Ext.D, this Court finds, it is a document supporting the claim of Nakul Charan Das issued from the Office of Public Information Officer, Baula Junior College, Soso with clear indication that he belongs to Scheduled Caste even though there is no Caste Certificate available in the College. Similarly, coming to Ext.F, this Court again finds, it is a document supporting the claim of Nakul Charan Das. The list of S.E.B.C. at Serial No.1 clearly indicates that Nakul Charan Das belongs to Scheduled Caste. There has been also other document, which comes to show that there have been some orders and promises of the competent authority under the OLR Act involving some other persons indicating their Caste as Pana Baisnab on the premises of they belong to Scheduled Caste. It also appears, there is a criminal case before the Special Judge, Keonjhar involving a complain of the petitioner against the accused persons under Sections 294/341/323/506/427/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3(I)(X)S.C./S.T.(PA) Act. The proceeding was undertaken and concluded on the premises that Nakul Charan Das was a Scheduled Caste. From Ext.J, it appears, there have been some financial benefits to said Nakul Charan Das in his capacity of Scheduled Caste. Nakul Charan Das also produced some sale deeds to establish that he belongs to Scheduled Caste, as clearly borne from the sale deeds. Preparing the documents at the instance of the rival parties getting into the controversy as to whether Nakul Charan Das belongs to Scheduled Caste or not, this Court finds, in one side there is a mere claim that for Nakul Charan Das belonging to the Caste, Pana Baisnab and such a Caste not being found in the list of S.C. & S.T. under the Presidential Notification, Nakul Charan Das cannot be considered as a Scheduled Caste, on the other hand there is a clear claim by Nakul Charan Das on production of several documents including the Caste Certificate showing Nakul Charan Das is all through treated as a Scheduled Caste. This Court, therefore, observes that for the limited scope of consideration that the authorities dealing with the election proceedings, there is no scope for such authorities to get into the question as to whether the Caste Certificate granted in favour of an elected candidate is false or not ? It is for the competent authority to get into such aspect. It is in the above background, this Court again observed, since the claim of the election petitioner based on elected candidate seeking election on production of false Certificate unless the election petitioner succeeded in a proceeding, declaring such Certificate either un-genuine or forged, the court undertaking the election dispute is bound by such Certificate. In the circumstance, this Court finds, both the courts below have exceeded in their jurisdiction in coming to observe that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste in spite of clear existence of series of documents establishing that the petitioner involved in both the cases belonging to Scheduled Caste. Further there is also wrong appreciation of material evidence available on record. Further the appellate authority not concurring findings of the trial court and on the other hand moving on the basis of a non-existent ground, this Court further observes that there is no proper consideration by the appellate court involving the appeal proceeding. 10. Now coming to the other dispute involved herein that Pana and Panabaisnab are not same thereby disqualifying Nakul Charan Das to contest the election, this Court taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vrs. Dasarathi Meher reported in, (2018) 2 CurLR 1159(SC) observes that for the decision therein there is no doubt to observe that Pana is the Caste when Panabaisnab is a designation but however since Ext.A clearly indicates that Nakul Charan Das belongs to Pana, this Court finds, the controversy has no relevancy for the time being. Again taking into account the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court involving Bharati Ready vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in,2018 2 CurLR 404(SC), this Court observes, the question of validity of Caste Certificate involved herein unless challenged before the competent forum and an order holding the same as invalid is obtained cannot be entertained. The authority deciding the election case is bound by the existence of such Certificate. State of Karnataka & others reported in,2018 2 CurLR 404(SC), this Court observes, the question of validity of Caste Certificate involved herein unless challenged before the competent forum and an order holding the same as invalid is obtained cannot be entertained. The authority deciding the election case is bound by the existence of such Certificate. This Court finds support of the decision in the case of Collector, Bilaspur vrs. Ajit P.K.Jogi & others reported in, (2011) 2 CurLR 1036(SC) to the case of the petitioner. Taking note of another decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Bhagawati Prasad Dixit Ghorewala vrs. Rajeev Gandhi reported in, (1986) AIR SC 1534 wherein in paragraph-11 the Hon'ble apex Court observed, the question of a candidate, whether is an Indian citizen even after acquiring foreign citizenship held that the High Court is not competent to decide such question in an election petition. Such declaration is only lie with the competent authority and unless such declaration is set aside by the competent authority, the Election Court remains undone. This Court finds, this decision has clear support to the case of the petitioner. Taking into account the decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & another vrs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & others reported in, (1995) AIR SC 94, this Court observes, for the clear direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the validity of the Certificate involved herein should be left to the Sub-Committee so constituted. This decision has also been followed in another decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Bharati Reddy vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in,2018 2 CurLR 404. This Court here also observes that the decisions involving democratically elected candidates cannot be interfered with so lightly unless there is strong case dislodging such candidates. 11. In the above background of the matter, this Court finds, both the election court as well as the appellate court have exceeded their jurisdiction in entering into the conflict, to which they have no jurisdiction and the impugned orders involved herein since have been passed entering into the question of validity of the Caste Certificate in an election proceeding cannot be sustained. Therefore, both the impugned orders, vide Annexures-1 & 2 involving W.P.(C) No.9090 of 2018 must fail. Therefore, both the impugned orders, vide Annexures-1 & 2 involving W.P.(C) No.9090 of 2018 must fail. For the decision of the Collector involving the other writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.26164 of 2017 on the same premises and based on similar conclusions as that of the election court, for the reasons assigned herein above the impugned order involving W.P.(C) No.26164/2017 also to fail. In the process, this Court while allowing both the writ petitions sets aside the orders at Annexures-1 & 2 of W.P.(C) No.9090 of 2018 and Annexure-4 of W.P.(C) No.26164 of 2017. For allowing both the writ petitions, this Court directs that in the event the petitioner has been unseated in the meantime, he may be permitted to assume charge of the post of Sarapanch forthwith. 12. In the result, both the writ petitions succeed. No cost.