1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5850 OF 2010 (Akhil Warthi (Parit) Samaj, Nagpur vs. The Union of India & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. JULY 04, 2011. Heard Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mishra, learned ASGI for respondents No. 1 & 5, Shri Sambre, learned GP for respondents No. 2 & 3 and Shri Puranik, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. The respective counsel for the respondents are contending that the petition as filed is wholly misconceived. However, in view of the earlier orders of this Court dated 16.06.2010 in Writ Petition No. 3424 of 2009, we are not at present going into that controversy. The controversy can be gone into after appropriate decision on merits becomes available. Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel has pointed out that after direction to decide the representation made by the petitioners, issued by this Court on 16.06.2010, the application of mind by Respondents No. 1 & 5 as is evident from the impugned communication dated 27.07.2010 is half hearted. He points out that necessary response 2 from the State of Maharashtra was not received and still in concluding para, an erroneous verdict has been reached. He contends that fact that “Dhoba” is already recognized as Scheduled Tribe, is also lost sight of in the process. The attempt of the petitioner is to show that the caste designated separately by words “Dhobi”, “Parit”, “Rajat”, are not different but are same as “Dhoba” and, therefore, entitled to be included as Scheduled Tribe in Constitution Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950. The direction of this Court dated 16.06.2010 was to look into this representation and grievance. The impugned communication dated 27.07.2010 overlooks this purpose and proceeds to decide, though there was no response from the State Government. We, therefore, quash and set aside that communication dated 27.07.2010 and direct Respondent No. 1 to take fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law as early as possible and in any case within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order to it. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.