1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4998 OF 2003 Smt. Maya d/o. Shripati Hugge, R/o-Datta Nagar, Yedashi Road, Osmanabad ...APPLICANT. (Orig. Petitioner) VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Schedule Tribe Caste Verification Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, 3) The Tahsildar, Omerga, Dist-Osmanabad, 4) The Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, (Through Chief Executive Officer). ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.V.M. Humbe Advocate for Applicant. Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri.R.P. Phatke Advocate,. for Respondent No.2. Shri. P.R. Kadam Advocate h/f. Shri. K.J. Ghute Patil Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 28TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the Review Petitioner submits that Review Petition is filed on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence. To elaborate his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon fourteen validity certificates granted by the committee in respect of cousins and close relatives of the Petitioner. This being discovery of new and important evidence, the Review Petition is required to be considered and allowed. The counsel referred to the provisions of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In support of his contentions, the counsel placed reliance on the following reported Judgments: 3 1) Jaydev s/o Mahadev Parate vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2006 (2) Mh. L.J. Page 497, 2) Varsha Ramsing Dhanavat vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2006 (4) Mh. L.J. Page 676, 3) Punjab National Bank and others vs. Vilas s/o Govindrao Bokade and others, 2007(3) Mh. L.J. Page 805, 4) Prashant s/o Haribhau Khawas vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008 (2) Mh. L.J. Page 322, 5) Digambar Damoji Wagh vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and others, 2010(1) Mh. L.J. Page 511 6) Kunhaya Ahmed and others vs. State of Kerala and others, (2000) 6 S.C.C. Page 359, 7) Parbhu s/o Narayan Survase vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2004 (4) ALL M.R. Page 815. 8) Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1996) 3 S.C.C. Page 685, 9) Kumari Madhuri Patil and others vs. Additionall 4 Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 S.C.C. Page 241, 10) Prakash S. Patil vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2008) 5 Mh. L.J. Page 202, 11) Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009(4) ALL M.R. Page 127, 12) Deorao s/o Ganpatrao Umredkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008 (1) Mh. L.J. Page 364 13) State of West Bengal and others vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008) 8 S.C.C. Page 612 14) Unreported Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4837 of 2005 (Dhondiba Kisanrao Sirsewad vs. State of Maharashtra and others) dated 2nd March, 2009 15) Unreported Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5676 of 2008 (Ramdas Gangadhar Khot vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) dated 20th January, 2009. 3. Learned counsel for the Review Petitioner has taken us through the affidavits filed by the 5 relatives, genealogy and the validity certificates issued to the relatives. 4. Shri. Phatke, learned Advocate appearing for the Committee, while referring to the order under review passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: A.P. Deshpande and Vasanti Naik, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.4998 of 2003 dated 20th July, 2005, submitted that the Petitioner had surrendered his right to claim benefits as a person belonging to "Mahadeo Koli", Scheduled Tribe, as observed by this Court. The counsel submits that the Review Petitioner had claimed appointment on the basis of a candidate belonging to Special Backward Category, which is reflected from Para Nos. 3 and 4 of the order under review. The learned A.G.P. submits that the order under review was challenged before the Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC 1860 of 2006. By an order dated 6th March, 2006 the Apex Court allowed the Special Leave Petition to be withdrawn and dismissed the same as 6 withdrawn. The learned counsel further submits that the order under review, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4998 of 2003 rejecting the caste claim of the Petitioner was not produced before the Committee while verifying the caste claims of the relatives of the Petitioner. 5. We have perused the order under review passed by the Division Bench of this Court, order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition, affidavits filed, genealogy and the validity certificates, which according to the Petitioner, are granted by the Committee in favour of relatives of the Petitioner and the Judgments cited supra. It is settled position that a person has to individually satisfy his caste claim before the Committee by leading evidence. The Petitioner failed before the Committee. In the High Court the claim of the Petitioner as belonging to "Koli Mahadeo" caste was rejected. From the impugned order it reflects that the Petitioner requested for issuing orders to the Zilla Parishad to 7 appoint her as a person belonging to Special Backward Category. The order under review was subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court. The Petitioner withdrew the Special Leave Petition and accordingly the same was dismissed. 6. Considering the principles governing review as enunciated under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Judgments cited before us, we find that the principles of reviewing the order are already settled. Each case will have to be decided in the peculiar facts and circumstances of its own. 7. The Review Petition is pending since 2008. From the order under review, passed by this Court and the grounds raised, we find that grounds of Review are not sustainable. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JUNE10/ra59.09