1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7557 OF 2009 Nirmala W/o Abhimanyu Umale/Boudh } Age : 38 Years, Occ. Household, } R/o : Village Dhule, Tq. Muktainagar } Dist. Jalgaon. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through the Secretary } In the department of Rural } Development, Mantralaya, } Fort, Mumbai. } 2. The Tahsildar } Muktainagar, Tq. Muktainagar, } Dist. Jalgaon. } 3. The Election Officer/ } The Returning Officer, } Gram Panchayat, Chinchkheda, } (Kd), Tq. Muktainagar, } Dist. : Jalgaon. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. V.B. Patil , Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. S.N.Kendre, A.G.P. for State. Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. 2 CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 11/12/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The petition arises out of an order rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner on the ground that the original validity certificate was not submitted, but what was submitted, was a copy received by Fax. Taking in to consideration the grounds raised in the petition, this Court by an interim order directed acceptance of nomination papers of the petitioner. Now, the elections have been held in which petitioner has been elected. As such, as far as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned, it no more survives. 3. In any case, I find that since the validity certificate could not be supplied due to the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner and since a copy which was received by Fax in the office of the Collector at the time of submission of nomination papers due to the reasons which are beyond the control of petitioner and since it was submitted at the stage of scrutiny, the Returning Officer was not justified in rejecting the nomination papers on hyper technical grounds. 3 4. For the reasons, the petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘ C ’. Rule is made absolute. [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP7557.09