1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.216 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6482 OF 2010 Pandurang s/o Madhavrao Pole ..APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for the appellant; Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents no.1, 2 & 4; Mr S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 28th July, 2010 PER COURT : This Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent takes exception to an order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 22.7.2010 in Writ Petition No.6482 of 2010 dismissing the writ petition which had been filed by the appellant challenging the rejection of his nomination paper. 2 2. As per the requirement of law, the candidates desirous of contesting the election and who do not have a validity certificate issued to them by the Scrutiny Committee are permitted to submit their nomination paper only in the event they have submitted an application to the Scrutiny Committee before filing of the nomination paper. The requirement of law further mandates that either a true copy of the application submitted to the Scrutiny Committee should be appended to the nomination form or any other proof of having made such an application to the Scrutiny Committee should be produced. The candidate is further required to submit an undertaking, in respect of which presently we are not concerned. 3. The appellant, who was desirous of contesting the forthcoming elections of the Grampanchayat of Dabhadi, Taluka Vasmat, District Parbhani, submitted his nomination form on 16.7.2010. According to the appellant he submitted an affidavit before the Returning Officer along with his nomination form stating therein that he had submitted an application to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste certificate. The Returning Officer, finding that the nomination form was not in accordance with the amendment to section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, rejected the nomination paper. The appellant being thus aggrieved ultimately filed Writ Petition No.6482 of 2010 before the learned Single Judge. The petition filed by the appellant and another writ petition filed by one Janabai w/o Pandurang Pole, i.e. Writ 3 Petition No.6481 of 2010 came to be decided by the common order, which is impugned in the present petition. The learned Single Judge by referring to the provision of law, held that the appellant had submitted an application before the Caste Scrutiny Committee subsequently and, therefore, the defect would not be cured. According to the learned Single Judge the appellant submitted a copy of the application dated 16.7.2010 on 18.7.2010. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found that the requirement of law was not fulfilled and, therefore, rejected the petition. 4. Mr Ghatol Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the appellant had tendered an affidavit stating therein that he had submitted an application and secondly that the defect was not of such a substantial nature as to warrant the rejection of the nomination paper. Shri Shelke, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 has repelled both these grounds and has urged for dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal. 5. The aforesaid two submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant do not find favour with us. The defect is certainly of a substantial nature. The appellant had not fulfilled the requirement of law. The appellant had not produced a true copy of the application preferred by him to the Scrutiny Committee nor had he tendered such evidence which would establish that he had submitted an application to the Scrutiny Committee. A reference in this behalf may usefully be made to the 4 provision dealing with the submission of the said documents. "Provided that, for the General or by-elections for which the last date of filing of nomination falls on or before the 31st December 2010, in accordance with the election programme declared by the State Election Commission, a person who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste certificate before the date of filing of the nomination paper but who has not received the Validity Certificate on the date of filing of the nomination paper shall submit along with the nomination paper : (i) a true copy of the application preferred by him to the Scrutiny Committee for issuance of the Validity Certificate or any other proof of having made such application to the Scrutiny Committee; and (ii) an undertaking that he shall submit, within a period of four months from the date of his election, the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee : Provided further that, if the person fails to produce the Validity Certificate within a period of four months from the date of his election, his election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a member." The requirement, therefore, contemplates that either true copy of the application has to be submitted or such evidence has to be produced of having made such an application to the Scrutiny Committee. As to whether the affidavit would amount to evidence or not is not a matter at present with which we are concerned. Suffice it to say that the recitals in 5 the affidavit cannot be considered as proof of having made such application to the Scrutiny Committee. The true copy of the application was thereafter produced by the appellant on 18.7.2010, i.e. after the date was over. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.5263 of 2010, Daulat Ananda Thombare vs. The Collector of Pune, Pune & ors., dated 9th July, 2010. The aforesaid is an order which was passed during the pendency of the petition. The Division Bench had directed the Returning Officer to accept the nomination forms of the candidates without insisting on the production of the caste validity certificate. The aforesaid order does not apply to the facts of the present case. 7. The appellant by virtue of the amended provision of the Act was permitted to submit a nomination form though no validity certificate had been issued to him on satisfaction of certain requirements which are contemplated and which are adverted to above. The appellant having failed to do so, his nomination form came to be rejected. According to us, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition. We have perused the findings and we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning 6 of the learned Single Judge to warrant any interference in this Letters Patent Appeal, which is sans merit and, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/lpa216.10