(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1099 OF 2007 Mohammad Gaus Mohammad Ibrahim Bagwan, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Raheman Nagar, Ward No.2, In front of Khandoba Mandir, Sailu, Taluka : Sailu, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Advocate General, State of Maharashtra, Office at Bombay High Court, Fort, Bombay. 2. Scheduled Caste, Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Class & Special Backward Category Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee No.2, Aurangabad (District : Parbhani & Hingoli), through Research Officer/Member Secretary). 3. Collector, Parbhani District, Parbhani. 4. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sailu, Taluka : Sailu, District : Parbhani. 5. Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar, Sailu, Taluka : Sailu, District : Parbhani. (2) 6. Sailu Municipal Council, .. Petition already Sailu, Taluka : Sailu, dismissed as against District : Parbhani, respondent no.6. through its Chief Officer. 7. State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, through its Commissioner, Madam Cama Road, Administrative Building, Opposite Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 8. Raju Prabhakar Rajurkar, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Maheshnagar, Sailu, Taluka : Sailu, District : Parbhani. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate, holding for Mr. R.J. Nirmal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Respondent no.1 served. Mr. S.K. Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.2 to 5. Petition already dismissed as against respondent no.6. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.7. Mr. S.D. Hiwrekar, Advocate, for the caveator. .......................... (3) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has moved for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 23rd July 2009. 2. It is pointed out, that while dictating the order, this court had directed that the petitioner would not be entitled to vote in the voting of the Municipal Council and claim any of the benefits as a Councilor, however, he should be permitted to participate in the meetings of the Municipal Council. It was further directed that the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee should decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months. 3. The said part is missing from the order. 4. Hence, the motion is allowed. 5. In the order dated 23rd July 2009, the following directions be added after paragraph 5 : (i) The Scrutiny Committee shall decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of this order. The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 7th September (4) 2009 and, as such, formal notice shall stand waived. (ii) It is further directed that though the petitioner shall not be entitled to take part in the voting of the Municipal Council or claim any of the benefits as Councilor of the said Council, he shall be permitted to sit and participate in the proceedings of the Municipal Council. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1099