1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.17101 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.43 OF 2007 1) Pandya Nadya Gavit, Age 42 years, Occupation : agriculture, R/o. Peda Pada, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. 2) Kantilal Tetya Gavit, Age 40 years, Occupation : agriculture, R/o Pandharphali, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. ... Applicants. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra Through Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 2) The Commissioner for Tribal Development, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3) Warden, Hostel for Tribal Student, At Post Nagzari, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. 2 4) The Principal/Head Master, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nagzari, Run by Adivasi Seva Sahayak Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Nagzari, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for applicants. Smt. R.R. Mane, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.1 to 3. Shri. A.D. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.4. -------- With REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.16616 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.43 OF 2007 * The Principal/Head Master, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nagzari, Run by Adivasi Seva Sahayak Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Nagzari, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. ... Applicant. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra Through Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 3 2) The Commissioner for Tribal Development, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3) Warden, Hostel for Tribal Student, At Post Nagzari, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. 4) Pandya Nadya Gavit, Age 42 years, Occupation : agriculture, R/o. Peda Pada, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. 5) Kantilal Tetya Gavit, Age 40 years, Occupation : agriculture, R/o Pandharphali, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. A.D. Shinde, Advocate for applicant. Smt. R.R. Mane, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.1 to 3. Shri. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE: 17th AUGUST 2009 4 PER COURT : 1) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 2) Both these review applications are filed seeking review of order dated 6th May 2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.43 of 2007. It is submitted by the counsel for the review applicants that the decision is taken at the behest of the Minister, according to a communication annexed at exhibit “F” of both these Review Applications, which is not a policy decision of the Government. The distance between two villages as given in the reply affidavit by the State filed in the writ petition is also not correct. Further it is submitted that this document (Exhibit “F” to the present applications) came to the notice of the review applicants at a later point of time, therefore, they are filing these review applications. 5 3) We have perused the averments made in the review applications, considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the review applicants and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. We do not find any sufficient cause made out by the review applicants for causing review of our order passed. The respondent No.4 though served preferred not to appear before the Bench. 4) No case for review of the order is made out by the review applicants. Both the review applications are dismissed. (N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ rast.17101.09