Yogeshwari D/O Chhagan Gaikwad Through Her Natural Guardian Father, Chhagan S/O Nitaram Gaikwad v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nagpur Through Its Chairman And Others

2411caw2299.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION W. NO.2299/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2245/2014 (D) Yogeshwari d/o Chhagan Gaikwad ...Versus...

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur through its Chairman, Nagpur and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.P. Dhok, Advocate for applicant Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3 Shri A.D. Sonak, Advocate for respondent no.5 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 24.11.2016 The learned Counsel for the applicant states that though the writ petition was earlier dismissed against the respondent no.4 by the order dated 17.2.2016, the order was set aside and the writ petition was restored against the respondent no.4 by the order dated 1.4.2016. It is stated that despite the restoration of the petition against the respondent no.4, in the cause-title of the judgment, dated 21.4.2016, it is wrongly mentioned that the writ petition is dismissed against the Principal, S.S.P.M. College of Engineering. It is stated that the necessary corrections may be made in the judgment, dated

2411caw2299.16.odt 21.4.2016, so that the petitioner can ask the respondent no.4 to implement the judgment and order, dated 21.4.2016. We find on a perusal of the judgment, dated 21.4.2016 and our previous orders that though the writ petition was restored against the respondent no.4, it is wrongly mentioned in the judgment, dated 21.4.2016 that the writ petition was dismissed against the respondent no.4. We, therefore, allow this civil application. The necessary corrections should be made in the judgment immediately.

The civil application stands disposed of accordingly. CIVIL APPLICATION W. NO.2240/2016 The learned Counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the application, as the grievance of the applicant stands redressed.

In view of the aforesaid, the civil application stands disposed of as withdrawn.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar