1 wp 9346.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9346 OF 2011 Humera Begum Kalimuddin .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Returning Officer Beed, Municipal Council Election 2011 Beed and others .. Respondents Shri R. R. Shaikh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 02ND DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The nomination paper of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that the caste validity certificate is not annexed. Shri Shaikh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the caste validity certificate could not be submitted because the Scrutiny Committee did not decide about the same. No fault lies with the petitioner and the caste claim of the blood relative of the 2 wp 9346.11 petitioner is validated. The learned counsel contends that the provisions of Sec. 9(A) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 are directory. 2. The said issue is no longer res-integra in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in a case of Bipinchandra Shahurao Thombre and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2010 (2) Bom. C. R. 656. So also another judgment of Division Bench of this Court in a case of Savita Vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 8778/2011. 3. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11