1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6894 OF 2010 Kesharbai w/o Mahadeo Panchal ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3 Shri H.P. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.4. ..... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.6895 OF 2010 Kesharbai w/o Mahadeo Panchal ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3 Shri H.P. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.4. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 4th August, 2010 PER COURT ): 1. These two petitions filed by the petitioner, question the correctness of the order passed by the Returning Officer, rejecting the 2 nomiantion form of the petitioner. The petitioner, who claims to be belonging to Other Backward Class, submitted her nomination for a seat from Ward No.2, which was reserved for O.B.C. candidate and also from Ward No.3, which seat was reserved for O.B.C. (female). According to the petitioner, the petitioner had submitted the caste certificate and other relevant documents as were required to be submitted along with the nomination form. According to the petitioner, despite the submission of copy of the caste certificate by the petitioner, the Returning Officer, by the order impugned in the present petitions, rejected the nomination form on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted a copy of the caste certificate. 2. On notice being issued to the respondents, Shri Shelke, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent made available to us the original record. The original record pertains to the nomination in respect of Ward No.2 and Ward No.3. We have perused the original record and we do not find that the petitioner had submitted a copy of the caste certificate along with the nomination form. 3. The petitioner in so many words has contended before us that the petitioner had submitted the caste certificate along with her nomination form and the respondent/ Returning Officer has deliberately rejected the nomination form on that count. Since we have perused the record, according to us, such disputed questions of facts cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. Reliance is placed by the 3 petitioner on the document pertaining to the scrutiny of the nomination form, which indicates that the petitioner had submitted the caste certificate along with the nomination form. Mr. Shelke submits that this obviously appears to be a mistake. We concur with the view expressed by the learned counsel for the respondent as indeed the record does not reveal that the petitioner had submitted a copy of the caste certificate along with the nominantion form. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, these two writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) fmp/wp6894.10