(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 796 OF 2011 Shri Datta s/o. Bhimrao Patil, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ghonsi, Taluka : Jalkot, District : Latur. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Cooperation Department, Mantrlaya, Mumbai, and 4 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Avinash S. Londhe, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Mr. A.S. Londhe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that nomination paper submitted by the petitioner was not accompanied by a certificate issued by the competent authority showing that he was below poverty line. He states that a certificate issued earlier was filed and after an appeal came to be filed challenging rejection of nomination paper, along with appeal memo, even certificate issued by the competent authority relevant for the said election has also been filed. The learned Counsel states that because of provisions of Section 152F of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, filing of appeal and its adjudication is part and parcel of election process and hence providing such certificate along with appeal memo must be presumed to be compliance with the condition requiring its filing along with nomination paper. 2. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4, states that if this contention is accepted, the date of scrutiny loses its significance. 3. It is apparent that for such election, last date for filing nomination is relevant. The petitioner did not submit necessary certificate before the last date and also at the time of scrutiny. (3) After rejection, along with appeal memo, he has filed that certificate. The lacunae or error prevailing on the last date, therefore, cannot be cured by it. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity with the impugned order. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp796