1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.94/2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.949/1995 (Smt. Champabai wd/o Gendlal Bora vs. Additional Commissioner and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : APRIL 8, 2009 Heard Shri Saboo, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Shri Kankale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.2.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ Petition No.949/1995 came to be dismissed. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. In para (6) of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has observed thus : “6) In fact before the lower Authority when status of respondent no.3 as belonging to Andh Scheduled Tribe was not in dispute, it was not 2 necessary for the said authority to hold any detailed enquiry into it. The law on the point is well settled and as per Division Bench judgment reported in the matter of Kashibai Sanga Pawar and others vs. State of Maharashtra (1993 Mh.L.J. 1168), this Court has held that after removal of area restrictions, a scheduled tribe, which was earlier, not included in the Constitution Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950 stands so included retrospectively. The Division Bench judgment has considred the case of Andh Scheduled Tribe only. It is apparent that the certificate issued by the Tahsildar in faovur of the petitioner mentioned above and also the stand of petitioner in her reply before the lower authorities was only on the ground of area restriction which prevailed on the date of sale deed, but they were not in existence after 1976.” In view of above referred observations made by the learned Single Judge, in our view, no case is made out for showing indulgence. The letters patent appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj 3