1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2808 OF 2010. Mohd.Riyazuddin Mohd.Mazharuddin, Age 35 years, Occ.Social Work, R/o Plot No.67, Yunus Colony, Katkat Gate,Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.B.Talekar, advocate holding for Mr.A.S.Golegaonkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 29.03.2010. PER COURT 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner challenges the order passed by the 2 Returning Officer dated 23.3.2010, rejecting the nomination of the petitioner in respect of forthcoming election of the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. 2. The petitioner was desirous of contesting the election in respect of a seat which was reserved seat, submitted his application. Along with the application, the petitioner also submitted the attested copy of the validity certificate issued to him by the competent Scrutiny Committee. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that at the time of Scrutiny despite affording all reasonable opportunity, the petitioner did not submit the original validity certificate till 5-30 p.m. Mr.Talekar, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 5-B of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the requirement therein does not contemplate submission of the original validity certificate at the time of scrutiny. 3 3. Perusal of the nomination form, annexed by the petitioner to this petition clearly reveals that the requirement of the nomination form is the submission of the original validity certificate at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers. The petitioner has contended that the original validity certificate came to be misplaced and was subsequently found by the petitioner. Undisputedly, the requirement of the nomination form till the submission of the original validity certificate at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers. Undisputedly the petitioner had not submitted the original validity certificate at the time of scrutiny. The impugned order clearly states that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner up to 5-30 p.m. for submission of the original validity certificate but since the petitioner has failed to submit the original validity certificate, the nomination paper came to be rejected. 4. The election process has already commenced and the last date for submission of the nomination papers was 22.3.2010. Scrutiny came 4 to be concluded on 23.3.2010 and the polling is scheduled to commence on 11.4.2010. 5. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, no case for interference much less at this belated stage is made and, therefore, the petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. We make it clear that any observations made by us had been made in respect of deciding this petition and would not come in the way of any Election dispute being filed by the petitioner. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp280810