S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J.

1. Rule. Ms. Jhaveri, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1 – State. Ms. Roopal Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.2. By consent, rule is fixed forthwith.

2. Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner who happened to be the candidate aspiring to be contestant in Election of Bhabhar Taluka Panchayat pursuant to the Notification dated 31st January 2018 has approached this Court by way of this petition with following prayers.

(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 passed by the respondent no.2, rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner, and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to accept the nomination from of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to contest the election of the Taluka Panchayat, Bhabhar from 17 Vadana constituency;

(B) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 passed by the respondent no.3 Annexure-G to this petition; and further be pleased to permit the petitioner to contest the election of the Taluka panchayat, Bhabhar from 17 Vadana constituency;

(C) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the election of Bhabhar Taluka Panchayat of 17 Vadana constituency;

(D) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.

Thus, what is essentially under challenge is the order dated 9th February 2018 where under her nomination is rejected on account of difference in name of the candidate – petitioner as in Voter's list the name is shown as Shah Marutiben Kanaiyalal whereas in the Caste Certificate the name is shown as Gamar Marutiben Dhudabhai and as the certificate of marriage indicating the change in name has not been produced on 9th February 2018 by 3:00 O'clock, the nomination came to be rejected. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order, the present petition is filed on the ground stated in the memo of the petition.

3. The facts in brief as could be gathered from the memo and the annexed documents would indicate that the elections for the Taluka Panchayat in question along with other panchayats inter alia scheduled to be held on 21st February 2018, the schedule is produced at page no.21 as could be seen from the notification in which it is mentioned that the date of notification is 31st January 2018. The last date of accepting the nomination form is 8th February 2018, the date of the scrutiny is happened to be 9th February 2018 and the withdrawal date is 10th February 2018. The voting is to take place on 21st February 2018. The petitioner filled in her nomination form along with requisite documents. However, as the petitioner was desirous of contesting on the seat which was reserved for the schedule tribe woman candidate, she had to submit the certificate indicating that she belong to schedule tribe. Accordingly, the certificate was produced and during the scrutiny i.e. 9th February 2018, the concerned officer noticed that there was a discrepancy in the name of the petitioner which the petitioner had explained by way of an affidavit, which is placed on record and that affidavit indicated that though she belong to schedule caste, she had married to Shri Kanaiyalal Shah, who was not a member of schedule caste and therefore, after marriage she had to mentioned husband's name and that is the reasons for non-matching with the name in other records i.e. the voter's list.

4. The officer appears to have insisted for production of marriage certificate, which according to the petitioner was not rightly available and the officer based thereupon appears to have rejected the nomination on the ground of non-availability of marriage certifica