1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER Smt. Harshpal Kaur Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Review Petition No.17/2010) In (S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.1626/2010) Date of Order :- May 05, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Parag Rastogi, for the petitioner. This review petition has been filed against the judgment dated 04.03.2010 passed by this Court. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that while this Court had noticed and relied upon the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. [AIR 1995 SC 94], (hereinafter referred to as 'Kum. Madhuri Patil I' for short), it has ignored another judgment equally named as Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane & Ors. [AIR 1997 SCC 2581] ('Kum. Madhuri Patil II' for short), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had modified its order passed in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil I. According to the learned counsel, in the first Kumari Madhuri Patil's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that all the State Governments shall constitute a committee of three officers, but in the Second Kumari Madhuri Patil's case, it had directed that the committee should consist of five members with quorum 2 of three members. According to the learned counsel, in the case of G.M. Indian Bank Vs. R. Rani & Anr. [(2007) 12 SCC 796], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had confirmed its decision in both the above mentioned cases and had held that the judgments of both Kumari Madhuri Patil's case would be binding on all the State Governments. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the judgment dated 04.03.2010 needs to be reviewed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to explain as to what prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case there are only three members in the committee. The only explanation given by him is that in case there is lack of quorum, the meeting cannot be held. Moreover, since this Court had given only two weeks' time for the State to decide on the caste certificate, the decision may be delayed if the quorum is not complete. But, it is for the State to ensure that the quorum of the committee is complete. Merely because, the committee consists of three persons, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.03.2010. Thus, there is no reason for reviewing the judgment dated 04.03.2010. Hence, this review petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-