wp11376.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11376 OF 2010 Sou Sakhubai w/o Uttam Mudalkar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. A.M. Gholap, advocate for the petitioner Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 15TH DECEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This matter was mentioned at 10.30 a.m. today. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is taken up for hearing at 1.00 p.m.. Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the copy of nomination form, which is placed with compilation at pages 12 to 14 and submitted that the petitioner did submit the acknowledgment receipt to the Returning Officer that the caste certificate of the petitioner is submitted to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for scrutiny/verification. According to counsel for the petitioner, the foot note at Sr. No.3 covers the case of the petitioner. According to counsel wp11376.10 -2- for the petitioner, the acknowledgment receipt shows that the petitioner's caste certificate is referred/submitted to the caste scrutiny committee for scrutiny/verification, though it was not submitted with the nomination form, the said was submitted to the authority on 13.12.2010 at the time of scrutiny. Therefore, counsel would submit that the petition deserves to be allowed. 2 On the other hand, learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents invited my attention to Exh. “B” i.e. election programme and submitted that as per the election programme the date which was fixed for acceptance of nomination form was from 6.12.2010 to 11.12.2010 in between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. therefore, the acknowledgment receipt produced by the petitioner was admittedly submitted on 13.12.2010 and same was not annexed with the nomination form, as indicated in foot note No.3 of the nomination form therefore, learned A.G.P. would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents. Upon perusal of election programme (Exh. B) filed at page 10, it appears that the date which was fixed for acceptance of nomination was from 6.12.2010 to 11.12.2010 till 3.00 p.m. There is no dispute that the nomination form was submitted by the petitioner on wp11376.10 -3- 10.12.2010. However, the said nomination form was not accompanied with the acknowledgment receipt which is at page 32 Exh."D'. Upon reading foot note No.3 of nomination form, it is clear that the candidate, who desirous to contest the elections from reserved constituency, in case does not possess the caste validity certificate, in that case he/she is required to submit the proof that caste certificate of the said candidate is submitted to the caste scrutiny committee for verification/scrutiny or the photo copy of the application which is submitted to the caste scrutiny committee for verification/scrutiny of the caste claim of the desirous candidate. 4 In the present case, admittedly, the acknowledgment receipt which is at Exh. "D' page 32 of the compilation was not filed/submitted/annexed to the nomination form by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the Returning Officer cannot be said to be perverse, rather it was in consonance with the foot note at Sr.No.3 of the nomination form. Hence, in my opinion, no case is made out. Writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/ wp11376.10 -4-