wp5998.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.5998/2011 Sau.Seema @ Rohini R. Thakre -vs- Sau.Nalini P. Barsakhale and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri D. M. Upadhye, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the respondent No.1 Mrs.Bodade, AGP for the respondent No.2. Shri Vaishnav, counsel for the respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 09.12.2011. Heard. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the District Judge allowing an appeal filed by the respondent No.1 against the rejection of her nomination form for contesting the municipal councils elections. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 had not submitted the caste validity certificate at the time of submission of the nomination form. However, on the date of scrutiny i.e. on 23/11/2011, the respondent No.1 had submitted a copy of the caste validity certificate as the original caste validity certificate was not with the respondent No.1 at that time. The original caste validity certificate was received by the respondent No.1 when the matter was decided by the learned District Judge. The Returning Officer rejected the wp5998.11.odt 2/2 nomination form of the respondent No.1 on the ground that there was non compliance of Section 9A of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships) Act, 1965 as she had not presented the caste validity certificate along with the nomination form. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 and permitted the respondent No.1 to contest the elections. The order passed by the learned District Judge cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. Though the caste validity certificate was not presented by the respondent No.1 at the time of submission of the nomination form. The same was furnished to the Returning Officer on the date of scrutiny of the nomination form on 23/11/2011. Hence, in effect, there was a compliance with the provisions of Section 9 A of the Act of 1965 as the respondent No.1 possessed a caste validity certificate as the caste claim of the respondent No.1 was already validated on the last date of submission of the nomination form. Since there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned District Judge, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE