( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7229 OF 2010 Sushilabai w/o. Yuvraj Sawant .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 4. Mr. S.S. Phatale h/f. Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for intervenor. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16.08.2010 P.C. :- 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to amend the petition. Leave granted. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges rejection of her nomination form. Respondent No. 4 rejected her nomination form on the ground that she did not remain present at the time of scrutiny and the caste certificate was filed which was of the period prior to her marriage. Another ( 2 ) ground for rejection of the nomination paper is that the petitioner did not file affidavit regarding change of her name as a result of the marriage or copy of the Government Gazette regarding change of her name. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and learned Counsel for the Intervenor i.e. the only candidate who remained in fray being the only valid candidate. 4. It appears, no doubt, that the petitioner did not file her affidavit regarding the fact that her name was changed after marriage. However, it was immediately filed on the same day. The Returning Officer could have reconsidered and reviewed the order rejecting the nomination, when such evidence was available. The rejection due to the fact that affidavit regarding change in the name after the marriage was not filed is rather on too technical ground. The petitioner did produce Caste Certificate pertaining to the period prior to her marriage. The caste of the petitioner could not be regarded as changed due to the marriage. Therefore, it was not necessary for her to show that same caste certificate had not became invalid or was continued to remain in force. It ( 3 ) is an admitted fact that the election is due on 22nd August, 2010. The technical objections raised by the intervenor are not worth the name and that in the democratic process it is not desirable that right of a candidate may be taken away only due to technical defects, which are of no much significant nature. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is required to be allowed to participate in the election process. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be allowed to contest the election and her nomination may be accepted. 6. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] snk/2010/AUG10/wp7229.10