1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5962 of 2011 Sou. Madhuri Siddharth Gadpayale Vs. Election Returning Officer and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. F.T. Mirza, counsel for the Petitioner. Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, AGP for the respondent no.1 and 5. Mr. S.U,. Nemade, counsel for respondent no.2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 8 th December, 2011. In this case the respondent no.2 had failed to produce the caste validity certificate at the time of filing the nomination papers. However, the respondent no.2 has produced the caste validity certificate on the date of scrutiny but the Returning Officer refused to accept the same on the ground that it was necessary for the respondent no. 2 to produce the caste validity certificate at the time of filing of the nomination paper. It is the case of the respondent no. 2 that the caste claim of the respondent no.2 was validated on 11.11.2011 and in effect there was a compliance of provisions of section 9-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils (Nagar Panchayat) and Industrial Township Act, 1965. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on considering the admitted facts of the case, it appears that the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act were in effect complied with and the Returning Officer was not justified 2 in rejecting the nomination form of the respondent no. 2. The learned District Judge, therefore, rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no. 2. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.