1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2740 OF 2010 Ghazi Saaduddin S/o Ghazi Zaheer Ahmad Manni, Age 37 years, Occ.Business, R/o Manzurpura, Tal. Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Tal. & Dist.Aurangabad. 2. The Returning Officer, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation For 2010 elections C/o Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 3. The Election Commioner, MS State Election Commission, Mumbai. 4. The Schedule Caste Verification Committee At Aurangabad Office : at Divisional Social Welfare Office Thombre Building, Behind Raj Petrol Pump, 2 Jalna Road, Aurangabad, through its member Secretary 5. The State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Social Welfare, Mantralaya,Mumbai. ... Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2649 OF 2010 Ghazi Saaduddin S/o Ghazi Zaheer Ahmad Manni, Age 37 years, Occ.Business, R/o Manzurpura, Tal. Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Tal. & Dist.Aurangabad. 2. The Returning Officer, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation For 2010 elections C/o Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 3. The Election Commioner, MS State Election Commission, Mumbai. 4. The Schedule Caste Verification Committee At Aurangabad Office : at Divisional Social Welfare Office Thombre Building, Behind Raj Petrol Pump, 3 Jalna Road, Aurangabad, through its member Secretary 5. The State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Social Welfare, Mantralaya,Mumbai. ... Respondents. ... Mr.J.R.Shaikh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Tambe, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 4. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 29.03.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V.Hardas,J.) 1. Both these petitions have been filed at the instance of the petitioner who seeks to challenge the order passed by the Returning Officer, rejecting his nomination papers. The petitioner has submitted his nomination from two wards as the petitioner was desirous of contesting the elections of the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad in the forthcoming 4 election. 2. The requirement of law as per Section 5-B of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 is that a candidate desirous of contesting election from a reserved post has to submit the validity certificate. The petitioner undisputedly does not possess a validity certificate. It appears that the claim of the petitioner as belonging to Madari (Scheduled Caste) came to be referred to the Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee by its judgment dated 28.8.2000 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the decision of the Scrutiny Committee filed W.P.No.4332/2000 in this Court. The Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 23.10.2001 dismissed the petition. Mr.J.R.Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner being aggrieved by the decision of the Scrutiny Committee and this Court, filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has granted stay to the effect and operation of both the 5 impugned orders. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Returning Officer should not have insisted the petitioner to produce the validity certificate in respect of the present election. Mr.Shelke, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Returning Officer has urged before us that the Supreme Court has not permitted the petitioner to contest the election without submitting the validity certificate and the stay of the orders of this Court relates to that matter. 4. The requirement of law obviously is that a candidate who seeks to contest the election on a reserved post has to submit the validity certificate. The caste claim of the petitioner has undoubtedly not culminated in any orders in favour of the petitioner. The proceedings are still pending in the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner does not possess the validity certificate. 6 5. In that light of the matter, therefore, the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner can not be faulted with. Both the Writ Petitions are, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp274010