1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No. 4712/2010 Gajanan Shankar Ghait vs. State of Maharashtra and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. V.R.Choudhari, Adv. For petitioner. Ms Khan, AGP for R- 1,3 and 4. Mr. P.B.Patil, Advocate for R-2. CORAM : V.C.DAGA & A.B.CHAUDHARI,JJ DATE : 9.12.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused petitioner. The impugned order is dated 13.2.1998 passed by the respondent no.2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that adverse order was never communicated to him and, therefore, he is entitled to challenge this order. He submits that he came to know about the order impugned, when some other person under the Right to Information Act sought this information and supplied it to his employer. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was well aware that his caste claim had been 2` referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. He was well aware that he was summoned by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. He had supplied relevant documents in support of his caste claim. He appeared before the Caste Scrutiny Committee from time to time. Under these circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to make inquiry and find out as to what happened to his caste claim which was pending before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The failure on the part of the petitioner to make inquiry leads us to draw an inference that the petitioner was well aware about the adverse order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is really against the normal human conduct that a person would not make enquiry about his Caste Scrutiny for more than 12 years specially, when he was knowing well that his caste claim was before the Scrutiny Committee for verification and from time to time he was appearing before them. In the above circumstances, we do not think this is a fit case for interference since it suffers from unexplained enormous delay and laches. In the result, the petition is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE 3` patle