1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5563 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4491 OF 2008 Atmaram Gorakh Malke - - - Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra and others. - - - Respondents Shri R. R. Mantri, Advocate for applicant. Shri K. G. Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Shri S. B. Talekar, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 14th September 2009 ORAL ORDER [ Per B. R. GAVAI, J. ] : 1. This is application for recalling the order passed by this Court on 29-7-2008. 2. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been impleaded, as a party 2 respondent to the said petition. However, it appears from the record that the petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 29-7-2008 even without issuing any notice to the present applicant. It is also not in dispute that it is the present applicant who had filed complaint before the Scrutiny Committee alleging that the petitioner in the said petition does not belong to Rajput Bhamta tribe and undisputedly the said complaint was also entertained by the Committee. 3. It is, therefore, clear that the applicant was entitled to be heard in the said petition before it was finally disposed of. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Pohla Singh alias Pohla Ram (D) By L.Rs. , (2004) 6 S. C. C. 126 held that if a petition is allowed by this Court without impleading a party who was a necessary party, such a party is entitled to raise its grievance by filing a fresh petition. In the present case, though the present applicant was impleaded by party respondent, said petition has been disposed even without issuing notice to the present applicant. 5. In that view of the matter, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). 3 6. Call for record in Writ Petition No. 4491 of 2008. 7. Post the matter for admission on 30-9-2009. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/ca556309