FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5376 OF 2010 ”Jyoti D/o. Narayan Vishwe Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nashik” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE :- 28TH OCTOBER, 2010. COURT'S ORDER : - [ PER A.A. SAYED,J.] 1] By the above petition, the petitioner calls in question the order dated 31/1/1989 passed by the respondent No.2 and the order dated 15-16/7/1991 passed by the respondent No.1. By the order dated 31/1/1989, the petitioner's tribe claim was invalidated and by order dated 16/7/1991, the appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to be dismissed. 2] It is noticed that the petitioner has challenged the above orders, after a period of almost 2 decades. The explanation for the delay is offered in para. 9 of the petition. The relevant portion of para.9 is reproduced hereinbelow :- “For the first time when in Special Civil Suit NO. 41/1998 the plaintiff therein produced order FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5376 OF 2010 ”Jyoti D/o. Narayan Vishwe Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nashik” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 of invalidation of tribe claim of petitioner dt.31/1/1989 and questioned her social status claim on 20/2/2010 the petitioner felt it necessary to get all documents pertaining to her social status claim verification proceeding.” 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 4/4/2007 of this court passed in Writ Petition No.8374 of 2006, wherein the petition was entertained notwithstanding the delay. He further submitted that the petitioner has not taken any benefit in respect of her caste claim and since the impugned orders would have far reaching consequences not only for the petitioner but it also would affect the future generations, it is necessary that the petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. 4] In so far as the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, from para.7 of the judgment, it is apparent that the petition was entertained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case. As such, the reliance on the said judgment is misplaced. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5376 OF 2010 ”Jyoti D/o. Narayan Vishwe Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nashik” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 5] We find the explanation for the delay to be wholly unsatisfactory and in view of the huge delay and laches we are not inclined to entertain the petition. 6] In the result, writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. [A.A. SAYED, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-