1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4014 OF 2010 Smt. Manisha W/o Yogendrasingh Thakur } ( Name before marriage - } Kum. Manisha D/o Ravindranath Mahale) } Age : 38 Years, Occ. Service as Clerk-cum } Typist with office of the Superintending } Engineer, Uttar Konkan Patbandhare } Prakalp Mandal, Kalwa (Thane), } R/o : Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Department of Tribal Development } Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32 } Through its Secretary. } 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate } Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar } Division, Nandurbar } Through its Member Secretary } 3. The Superintending Engineer } Uttar Konkan Patbandhare Prakalp } Mandal, Kalwa (Thane). } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.S.Golegaonkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K.Tambe, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 03/05/2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction against respondent no. 2 to decide the tribe claim pending since 5/9/2006 at an earliest, so also seeks further directions against respondent no. 3 not to take any adverse action against the petitioner solely on the ground that the tribe claim is pending with respondent no. 2. 3. In view of the fact that the tribe claim of the petitioner is pending adjudication with respondent no. 2 since 5/9/2006, we direct respondent no. 2 to decide the said tribe claim within period of six months from today. We also direct respondent no. 3 not to take adverse action against the petitioner solely on the ground that the tribe claim is not yet decided. 4. In the light of above, Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 4014.10 ( J ) 3