1 wp 9253.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9253 OF 2011 Vanita Venkat Kakre .. Petitioner Versus The Returning Office/Sub Divisional Officer and others .. Respondents Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri P. V. Barde, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri N. P. Patil (Jamalpurkar), Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard Shri Gunale, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that though on the date of filing of the nomination paper the petitioner did not possess the validity certificate, still on the date of scrutiny the petitioner could get the validity certificate and as such the same would be sufficient compliance of the provisions of Sec. 9(A) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships 2 wp 9253.11 Act 1965. Non submission of the validity certificate is only a formal defect. The learned counsel further contends that when on the date of scrutiny the validity certificate was already submitted, then there was no impediment for the authority to accept the same, as before rejection of nomination paper the same stood submitted. 2. Shri S. T. Shelke, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Shri Barde, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Shri N. P. Patil (Jamalpurkar), the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submit that the provisions of Sec. 9(A) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 are mandatory and said provisions will have to be followed scrupulously. The learned counsel rely on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Bipinchandra Shahurao Thombre and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2010 (2) Bom.C.R. 656 and the order dated 30 th November, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 9205/2011 and submit that even the validity of the said provision has been negated by the Division Bench. 3. The Division Bench of this Court in a case of 3 wp 9253.11 Bipinchandra Shahurao Thombre referred supra has upheld the validity of said provision and has further laid down that the condition regarding submission of validity certificate along with nomination paper cannot be diluted, merely because of the fortuitous circumstances in which petitioners have been placed. 4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11