1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3817 OF 2010 (Sau. Sunanda G. Gawai vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 16, 2010. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Patel, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 4. Nomination paper filled in by the petitioner lady was rejected only on the ground that caste certificate submitted by her was in different name. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel states that the petitioner had given affidavit separately pointing out that certificate was in her maiden name. He also states that she explained her caste in the certificate, her marriage, her name after marriage and that her husband was also from the same caste. An application was also moved before the Returning Officer in this respect and his attention was invited to all these documents with a request to cancel the order of rejection and to accept nomination paper but that has not been acted upon and erroneously rejected. The learned AGP states that Returning Officer 2 has to verify the documents submitted along with nomination paper and as per instructions issued, caste certificate has to be in the same name as that of the candidate. Here, caste certificate submitted is not in the name of the candidate and hence nomination paper has been rightly rejected for the same. He justifies the rejection of the application of the petitioner submitted later on. After hearing Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel and learned AGP with Returning Officer, it is apparent that there was no objection raised by anybody to the identity of the petitioner. It is also apparent that caste certificate submitted by her is in her maiden name and not in the name which appears in voters list. However, that by itself cannot be treated as fatal to her nomination when she has placed on record affidavits explaining that lady whose name appears in the voters list and the lady in whose name the caste certificate stands is one and the same. That affidavit could not have been ignored by the Returning Officer except for valid reasons. The impugned order of rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner is, therefore, quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 4 is directed to accept that nomination paper and to permit the petitioner to contest the election. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order 3 as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to AGP. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE *GS.