1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2806 OF 2010 Sow. Mandabai W/o Sunil Pardeshi } Age : 34 Years, Occ. : Household, } R/o : Harne Nagar, Room No. 11, } Jalgaon Road, Survey No. 194/2, } Opp. SBOA School, Aurangabad. } ..... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Commissioner } Municipal Corporation } Aurangabad } 2. The Returning Officer } Municipal Corporation } Aurangabad for Ward No.2 } for 2010 Elections. } Ward No. “ E ”, Aurangabad } 3. The Election Commissioner } Maharashtra State, State } Election Commission } Mumbai. } 4. The State of Maharashtra } Through State Election } Commission, Mantralaya } Mumbai. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. R.S.Shinde, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt. Pleader. Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no. 4. 2 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29/03/2010 JUDGMENT : [ PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. Heard respective counsels for the parties. 2. The petitioner had submitted nomination form for contesting general election of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad from Ward No. 2, which is reserved for other backward class ( woman ). It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to Gandhari caste which is categorized as other backward class. It is her further contention that along with nomination form, she had submitted a copy of caste validity certificate. By mistake, she could not submit the original caste certificate for verification to the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny which was scheduled on 23/3/2010. The Returning Officer has rejected the nomination form on the ground that the original caste validity certificate has not been produced. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had already submitted copy of the attested caste validity certificate along with the nomination form and it was due to unintentional mistake on the part of the petitioner, she did not submit the original caste validity certificate at the time of scrutiny, still the same would not have made any difference as nobody had taken any objection to her nomination form. 3 As such it was erroneous on the part of the Returning Officer to reject the nomination form for non production of the caste validity certificate at the time of scrutiny. 4. It is undisputed that the petitioner could not produce the original validity certificate at the time of scrutiny before the Returning Officer. In view of the same, the Returning Officer had no alternative but to reject the nomination form. The voting is scheduled on 11/4/2010 and the list of validly nominated candidates is to be published on 30/03/2010. The election process can not be interfered with. The petitioner if so desirous, has remedy of filing Election Petition. 5. In light of the above aspect, the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 2806.10