( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7330 OF 2010 Gayabai w/o. Ramlal Dale .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Yuvraj V. Kakade, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16.08.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel. The petitioner’s nomination form is rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that she did not file any evidence to show, particularly acknowledgment about application addressed to the Scrutiny Committee regarding the verification of her caste claim. It is apparent that the petitioner had filed only a copy of application dated 28.10.2005, which is addressed to Tahsildar. The copy filed on record is illegible. Counsel states that he is ready to file certified copy of that application. The elections are due on 22nd of this month and ( 2 ) there hardly any time left. At this fag end of process of elections, it is difficult to entertain the petition in view of Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade V/s. Returning Officer, Akot and Anr., 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 359. Mere filing of such copy of the application addressed to the Tahsildar cannot be regarded as sufficient compliance of the requirement which is granted by way of exception under the Government Ordinance for temporary period regarding elections to be held prior to December, 2000. In-fact, law requires that duly verified caste claim is necessary for treating the candidate as valid candidate for reserved post. It is contended that the petitioner was previously member of Village Panchayat. Her earlier membership does not give scope for granting exemption to her from the compliance of necessary requirement of Section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. 2. In view of this matter, the petition is disposed of with liberty to agitate all these questions in regular Election Petition. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/AUG10/wp7330.10