1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6651 OF 2009 Manohar Anandrao Patil ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Petitioner in person; Mr N.B. Khandare, Govt. Pleader for respondent - State; Mr Alok Sharma, Asstt.Solicitor General for R.O. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 9th October, 2009 PER COURT : This is a petition filed by the petitioner who appears in person and who challenges the order passed by the Returning Officer, dated 26.9.2009 rejecting the nomination submitted by the petitioner for contesting the forthcoming elections scheduled to be held on 13.10.2009, i.e. barely four days from now. 2. Be that as it may, the Returning Officer had ascribed two reasons for rejection of the nomination paper; the first was that the affidavit submitted by the petitioner was not complete as the petitioner had not scored out the portion which was not applicable. The second reason which was ascribed was that the form in Appendix 6 (c) was not complete as the petitioner had not scored out which was not applicable to the petitioner. 2 3. Accordingly, upon hearing the petitioner who appeared in person, we had issued notice to the respondents. The respondents have made available to us the original record. Upon perusal of the original record we are extremely shocked to notice that the documents produced by the petitioner in this Court are fabricated documents. The petitioner has annexed copy of the form at Appendix 6 (c), which according to him had been submitted by him. The aforesaid form contains 8 paragraphs in which the information is required to be disclosed. Paragraph 5 deals with the information to be disclosed as to whether the applicant/candidate has been convicted and if so, the offences for which he has been convicted. The original form submitted by the petitioner does not disclose that he had scored out Yes/No. The copy of the form submitted by the petitioner along with this petition shows that he had scored out "Yes" retaining the unscored portion as "No". Similarly, column (6) which deals with pending litigation giving again an option to be filled in by the applicant in respect of "Yes"/"No". The original of the form filled in by the petitioner discloses that he had not scored out either "Yes" or "No" while the copy annexed to the petition shows that he had scored out "Yes", thereby maintaining "No". 4. Since the petitioner appears in person and has produced before us documents which are prima facie fabricated documents and upon perusal of the original record we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination paper, we dismiss the petition as no interference is called for in this petition. Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/wp6651.09