1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No. 2854/2007 Shri Deorao Barsuji Nandkar andanother vs. Government of India and others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & A.H.JOSHI, JJ DATE : 22.10.2008 None appears for the petitioners. On the last date the petition was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners. After the petition was amended, the relief sought for in this petition is limited only to the following two prayers viz. (i) quash and set aside the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 and the mechanism set up under the Act, and quash and set aside TDD GR STC-1399/C.No.- 2/D-10 of G.O.M. dated 09.09.1999; (ii) issue directions to the respondents to form a Committee to publish all relevant Government Resolutions and the law laid down in a book in form for ready reference to a community in Marathi, Hindi and English. In so far as the first prayer is concerned, this court has upheld the validity of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance 2` and verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001) and, therefore, nothing further survives in the said prayer. In so far as the second prayer (ii renumbered) is concerned the State Government has already published a book containing the Government Resolutions notifying various social groups as Other Backward Class and the notifications or the presidential orders issued by the Government of India regarding the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The law laid down by this court or by the Supreme Court of India is by way of Judgments/ orders and these are normally published in the Law Journals and of late they are also available on the respective web sites. Hence, in our considered opinion, nothing remains to be considered in this petition and the same is hereby rejected as infructuous. JUDGE JUDGE patle 3`