1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENET APPEAL NO. 226 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6973 OF 2010 Chandrakala W/o Keshav Giri .. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri S. B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for the Appellant. Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 5. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 06TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : . This letters patent appeal questions correctness of the order of learned Singal Judge dated 05th August, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 6973 of 2010 rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant had submitted her nomination form from 2 Ward No. 1 of village panghayat. Since the appellant claimed to be belonging to O.B.C. category her nomination form came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 26.07.2010 by the Returning Officer on the ground that the appellant had not submitted the receipt regarding the forwarding of her claim to the caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste certificate. 3. The learned Single Judge has delt in detail in respect of the provisions regarding submission of the validity certificate or such proof regarding the pendency of the claim before the Scrutiny Committee. At paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner had only submitted a copy of the application submitted by the petitioner to the Tahsildar on 18.03.2006. 4. We have perused the aforesaid copy of the application submitted by the appellant to the Tahsildar. The appellant forwarded her caste certificate and other documents for verification to the Scrutiny Committee. There is no endorsement on the said letter by the Tahsildar that the documents had been forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee. The requirement of the provision is that a candidate should either submit a validity 3 certificate or a true copy of the application preferred by him/her to the Scrutiny Committee for issuance of validity certificate or any other proof of having made such application to the Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, what was required to be submitted by the appellant was such proof as would show that the claim of the appellant is pending before the Scrutiny Committee. The letter submitted by the appellant only shows that the appellant had submitted the certificate to the Tahsildar. The reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the circular issued by the Government directing all the Tahsildar to forward the certificate of the candidates who have not been given validity certificate to the Scrutiny Committee. This does not in any manner amount as proof that the certificate of the appellant is referred to the Scrutiny Committee and the claim is pending for verification. Since we do not find any merit in the present letters patent appeal, same is dismissed summarily with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/Aug.10