1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10629 OF 2010 Gulab Ismail Matole ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. A.B. Tele, advocate for the petitioner Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 30TH NOVEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2 This petition takes exception to the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Nilanga in appeal No. 1 of 2010 whereby confirming the order of rejection of nomination form dated 2.11.2010 passed by the respondent No.3 Returning Officer, Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Limited at Gaur, Tq. Nilanga, District Latur. 2 3 Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not requirement of Rule 56N sub rule 3 that the petitioner should annex the certificate along with the nomination form to show that he is from economical weaker section. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the judgment of this Court which concludes that if the defect is not of a substantial in nature, the nomination form should be accepted. Learned counsel further submitted that the nomination form provided by the Returning Officer does not mention anywhere to furnish the details of income or the land holding by the applicant is required to be mentioned. Therefore learned counsel would submit that this petition deserves to be allowed. 4 On the other hand, learned A.G.P. on the basis of the original papers received from the Returning Officer submits that the nomination form which was filled in by the petitioner does not disclose the details of his income and also land holding and as such the Returning Officer has no option but to reject the nomination form. It is further submitted that no details of income or land holding were included in the nomination form or no certificate that the petitioner is from economically weaker section was annexed to the nomination form. Therefore, the Returning Officer has rightly rejected the nomination form. 3 5 Upon hearing counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for the State and upon perusal of Rule 56N sub rule 3 of the said Rules, it is true that the contesting candidate has to mention about details of income and land holding by the candidate, who is contesting the election from the category of economically weaker section. That apart, it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not submit the certificate alongwith the nomination form. In my opinion, no case is made for interference. On plain reading of Rule 56N sub Rule 3, the petitioner was obliged to mention the details of income and land holding in the nomination form, which was filled in from the category of economically weaker section for contesting the election of Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited. The petition thus stands dismissed. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/