1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 1392/2009 in W.P.No. 3975/2009 Narendra Gopalrao Nadge vs. The Joint Commissioner and Vice- Chairman, Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Irwin Chowk, Amravati.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : A.P.Lavande & P.D.Kode,JJ DATE : 11.12.2009 Heard Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this application the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 18th September, 2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3975/2009 by which the petition was dismissed on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay in filing the petition. 3. The petitioner had filed the above referred Writ Petition No. 3975/2009 on 9.9.2009 challenging the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In the petition no reason in approaching the court after almost four years and six months was mentioned. In the review application it has been stated that Padma wife of the petitioner has been 2` suffering from para plegya with CVE with Vertigo since the year 2005 and she has been under medical treatment since then. The medical certificate issued by the hospital has been annexed to the application. 4. According to Mr. Bhandarkar, dismissal of the petition has caused serious prejudice inasmuch as the petitioner has been deprived of his opportunity of proving that Caste Scrutiny Committee wrongly invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. Mr. Bhandarkar however submitted that there is no period of limitation fixed for filing the writ petition and considering the circumstances in which the petitioner was placed, period of four years and six months could not be termed as fatal to the filing of the petition. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be reviewed and the petition be restored. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record we find no ground to grant review application. No doubt there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing of the writ petition. However, the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has to consider whether the petition has been filed within the reasonable time. In the present case the petitioner has admittedly served as clerk for the last 25 years. The mere fact that his 3` wife was suffering from para plegya with CVE with Vertigo would not by itself be sufficient to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee after four years and six months. The grounds stated by the petitioner in the review application are not sufficient for granting review application. We, therefore, find no merit in the application. Hence, the review application is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE patle