1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5156 OF 2010 Rukmaji Bhawani Jondhale Age : 80 years, Occ : Agril, Worker, R/o Dhanora (Bk), Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur ..Petitioner -VERSUS- 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 (Copy to be served on Standing Counsel, High Court of Bombay bench at Aurangabad). 2. The State Election Commission, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai. 3. The Returning Officer and Tahsildar, Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur. ..Respondents .... Mr.V.H. Solanke, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr.D.R. Korade, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 3. .... (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 17th June, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner's nomination paper came to be rejected 2 by the Returning Officer due to non-submission of caste certificate along with the nomination paper. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the relevant record, which was made available for perusal, it is explicit that the petitioner did not file caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority along with the nomination form. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the Government Resolution dated 9th June, 2010, the grace period of four months is available to produce such certificate. I do not agree. Purport of the Government Resolution is clear. If the same is read along with Section 10-1(A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, the Government resolution is only to the extent of grace period made available to furnish caste validity certificate and it does not do away with the requirement of filing of the caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority along with the nomination form. In this view of the matter, the Petition is destitute of substance, hence the Petition is dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp5156.10