1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2690 OF 2010 Taherkhan s/o. Daudkhan Pathan ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondent. Shri. V.B. Garud, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for the respondent/State. Shri. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Shri. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 4. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 26th March, 2010 PER COURT : 1. The nomination papers of the petitioner have been rejected on account of failure to produce the caste validity certificate along with nomination papers. 2. The petitioner is desirous to contest the election of Municipal Corporation as against the reserved seat. Section 5-B of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 prescribes condition in 2 respect of submission of caste certificate along with the nomination papers. Admittedly, the petitioner did not present validity certificate along with the nomination papers. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that he has tendered an application to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste claim and the matter is pending with the Committee. It is contended that the petitioner has no control over the Scrutiny Committee and as such, could not secure a decision at earlier point of time. It is, thus, contended that the provisions of Section 5-B of the Act of 1949 are required to be construed as directory in nature. The learned counsel seeks leave to place reliance in the matter of Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2008 (2) B.C.R. 712. The question that arose for consideration before the Division Bench in the reported matter is, whether the period of four months prescribed by proviso to section 5-B of the MMC Act for production of caste validity certificate be regarded as directory or mandatory. While answering the issue, the Court has held that the period prescribed by the proviso cannot be held to be mandatory. 4. It is tobe noted that the proviso which was appearing prior to amendment has been deleted and as such, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the judgment cited above. The petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 5-B of the Act of 1949 and as such, 3 the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the nomination papers presented by the petitioner. No interference is called for in exercise of powers conferred to this Court under Article 227 of Constitution. The petition, therefore, stands rejected. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/wp2690.10