1 C.A.No.17893/10 In WP 4526/06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17893 OF 2010 WITH REVIEW PETITION ST.NO.35788 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4526 OF 2006. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nasik Division, Nasik through its Member Secretary Devdatta S/o Digambar Mayee, Aged 53 years, Occ.Service as Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman, Office of Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nasik Division, Nasik. ...Applicant. Versus Shrikant S/o Somnath Bagul ... Respondent. ... Mr.R.P.Phatake, advocate for the applicant. Mr.V.D.Godbharle, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.A.H.Koralkar, advocate for the petitioner in W.P. ... 2 C.A.No.17893/10 In WP 4526/06 CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 14.01.2011. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nasik Division, Nasik through its member Secretary Mr.Devdatta S/o Digambar Mayee, has filed the present application for condonation of delay and application for reviewing the order passed by Division Bench of this Court (Coram :B.R.Gavai and A.A.Sayed,JJ.) on 14.10.2010, in Writ Petition No.4526/2006. 3. Mr.Phatake, learned counsel submits that the views expressed by the Division Bench while disposing of Writ Petition No.4526/2006 are contrary to the views expressed (Coram : D.K.Deshmukh and K.K.Tated, JJ.) on 5.12.2009 in Writ Petition No.2152 of 2007, in respect of grant of verification of Caste claim of persons whose close relatives were already granted 3 C.A.No.17893/10 In WP 4526/06 validity certificates. 4. The first question which arises is as to whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee which is constituted U/s 6 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, being a quasi judicial forum/Tribunal is competent to file Review Petition seeking review of judgment delivered by Division Bench of High Court. 5. The second question is in view of the submissions advanced, whether Review Petition would be maintainable on the plea that two Division Benches have expressed contrary view as is pleaded by the applicant before this Court. 6. On both these counts, we find that the Review Proceedings initiated by Committee are not maintainable. There is no merit in the Review Petition. The application is misconceived. 4 C.A.No.17893/10 In WP 4526/06 7. The Civil Application for condonation of delay is allowed and Review Petition stands dismissed. 8. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent submits that in Writ Petition No. 2164/2010, the Scrutiny Committee had filed Review Petition St.No.35376/2010, which came to be dismissed by Division Bench (Coram : B.R.Gavai and K.U.Chandiwal,JJ.) on 13.12.2010. Learned counsel Mr.Phatake, submits that, that Review Petition is filed on different facts and circumstances. 9. The Government Pleader, shall forward copy of this Order to the Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 10. Authenticated copy be given. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) asp/office/Ca17893.10 5 C.A.No.17893/10 In WP 4526/06