1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1596 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1596 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1596 OF 2008 Sunil S.Nanavre .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.A.Sawant for the Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Masurkar,Govt.Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . The caste certificate of the Petitioner was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee was challenged by way of filing the writ petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 8446 of 2004. That writ petition was dismissed. As against this the Petitioner filed Petition for Special leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while dismissing the Petition observed : "Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition. 2 Permission granted. The Special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn stating that he wants to move the scrutiny committee. However, we have expressed no opinion in this regard." 2. It appears that the Petitioner had moved the representations after the order of the Supreme Court on 15th March, 2007 and 20th April, 2007 before the Committee-Respondent No.2 and seeks directions that the order dated 30th April, 2004 passed by the Respondent No.2 and consequential orders of termination passed by the Respondent No.4 on 13th September, 2004 be quashed. The order dated 30th April, 2004 passed by the Respondent No.2 was the subject matter of earlier writ petition and the said writ petition has been dismissed and the order of this court has become final in view of the withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition by the Petitioner. Therefore, there is no question of challenging the order dated 30th April, 2004 again by way of this writ petition. 3. With regard to the directions that Respondent No.2 Committee should consider Petitioner’s representation dated 15th March, 2007 and 20th April, 2007, it is suffice to say that the Supreme Court has not given any such directions. The Supreme Court had merely given liberty to the Petitioner to move Scrutiny 3 Committee. We are afraid what order that the Scrutiny Committee can pass on the representations of the Petitioner when their order dated 30th April, 2004 has already been upheld by the High Court. If the Scrutiny Committee upset the earlier decision taken by them on 30th April, 2004 that would be upsetting the orders of this Court which have become final. 4. In this view of the matter, we feel that the Petitioner tried to re-open the case which is already concluded by the Judgment of this Court as well as the order of the Supreme Court. 5. The writ petition is misconceived and has dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)