Bombay High CourtCAO/1165/2013dispossed offdismiss for default

Suresh S/O Ramchandra Dhanore v. Divsnl Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 And 2 ORS

2015-01-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.P. Bhangale2 pages

51cao1165.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CAO NO. 1165/2013 AND MCA ST. NO.13059/2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 829 OF 2012 (Shri Suresh s/o Ramchandra Dhanore vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

JANUARY 05, 2015.

Heard Shri Moon, learned counsel for the applicant - petitioner.

Writ Petition No. 829 of 2012 filed by the present petitioner, questioning the order of Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating his caste claim, was disposed of by this Court on 29.08.2012. In that writ petition, challenge was to the order dated 27.07.2011. This Court found that the Scrutiny Committee had earlier invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner on 13.07.2010 itself and that invalidation was upheld by this Court on 01.07.2011 while disposing of Writ Petition No. 3490 of 2010. Thus, the second order of the Scrutiny Committee and second writ petition challenging it, was found erroneous. This order dated 29.08.2012 was

51cao1165.13 questioned before the Hon'ble Apex Court and Special Leave Petition filed against it has been disposed of in view of the statement made by the petitioner that he would like to file a review application before this Court. Thereafter, the present applications have been filed for condonation of delay of 299 days and for review of the order.

Insofar as application for review is concerned, there are no grounds raised whatsoever, only developments right up to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court have been mentioned.

In this situation, Shri Moon, learned counsel appearing for the applicant seeks leave to file appropriate application afresh. According to him, the petitioner - applicant is interested only in seeking the protection of his services.

As we do not find any ground for review, it is apparent that there is no question of issuing any notice on the application for condonation of delay. Hence, with liberty to the applicant - petitioner to take necessary steps as are open to him in law, we dispose of the present application and also MCA. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.