1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1477 OF 2008 Sampat s/o.Tukaram Waghmare. ...Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Suresh M.Kulkarni & Anil P.Gatne, for Petitioner. Mr.A.L.Patki, A.G.P. for Respondent no.1 & 2. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 4th June, 2008. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner's claim that he belongs to “Mahadeo Koli” scheduled tribe was negatived by the order dated 21.9.1991 passed by the Scrutiny committee. According to the petitioner, that order was not communicated to him, and therefore, he applied again for validation of his caste claim; by communication dated 31.7.2006 he was informed that 2 his application cannot be considered because his claim has already been rejected on 31.10.1991; then petitioner applied for copy of the order dated 21.9.1991 on 17.1.2008, and on his application, a copy of the order was supplied to him and he has filed this petition in February,2008. There is no explanation given as to why the petitioner waited till January,2008, when latest by August,2006 he was aware that his caste claim has been rejected by order dated 31.10.1991, to apply for copy of that order. The only explanation given is that the petitioner thrice met some officers of the Committee and requested for copy of the order. The explanation is incapable of being believed. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case “K.Venkatachala Bhat and another Vs. Krishna Nayak (D) by Lrs. And others, (2005)4 Supreme Court Cases 117”, specially the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 13 where the Supreme Court has observed that the order challenged in the writ petition filed before the Division Bench passed by the learned Single Judge was invalid, and the Division bench should have condoned the substantial delay involved in filing the appeal for the reasons indicated by the appellants. Therefore, we asked the 3 learned Counsel as to what are the reasons given for not approaching for copy of the order immediately after 31.7.2006 and not approaching this Court immediately thereafter. However, we find no acceptable reason given by the petitioner. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioner is guilty of latches and does not deserve any interference at the hands of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.) ---