1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8779 OF 2009 Annasaheb Dagdu Patakrao, Age: 24 years, Occ: Student, R/o. Samarth Nagar, in front of S.R.T. College, Parli Road, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Health Sciences, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for petitioner. Smt. Yogita M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for State respondents. .... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner prays for direction to the 2 respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to declare the result of final year B.D.S. course. According to the petitioner, he was admitted as Scheduled Tribe candidate in the B.D.S. course. His caste claim was invalidated by the Committee. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram : A.P. Deshpande & Vasanti A. Naik, JJ.) by an order dated 29-08-2005 summarily dismissed the Writ Petition No. 6155 of 2005. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.20561/2005 which came to be dismissed by an order dated 21-10-2005. The petitioner filed present petition on 08-10-2009 after near about four years of dismissal of the Writ Petition No.6155 of 2005. 3. According to the petitioner, he was continuing the studies by paying fees which are applicable to the candidates belonging to open category. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments. 3 (1) R. Vishwanatha Pillai, vs. State of Kerala and others with Vimal Ghosh vs. State of Kerala and others ( 2004 A.I.R. SCW 419). (2) Sandeep Subhash Parate vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2006(6) ALL MR (SC) 71]. (3) Jyoti Pralhad Sangle vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2003(4) Bom. C.R. 558]. (4) Dheeraj Padalalu (Dr.) & another vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2003(4) Bom.C.R.560] (5) Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2079 of 2008 decided on March 7,2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8241 OF 2006) [The Practical Lawyer ]. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the light of the judgments cited supra, the petitioner's result be 4 declared. 5. We have perused the Judgments cited supra. First of all, we find that there has been undue delay in approaching this Court after dismissal of the S.L.P. We are not aware as to whether the petitioner had made such request which the petitioner is making before this Court before the Apex Court. Writ Petition No. 6155 of 2005 was dismissed on merits. In this view of the matter and in the light of statutory provisions of the said Act, we find that it would not be appropriate and reasonable to entertain the petition, by directing the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner. Writ Petition is rejected. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] SUT/JUL10/wp8779.09