MAVSING PRATAPSING PATELIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel Mr. K.B. Pujara for the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Monali Bhatt for the respondents. The applicant is the original appellant and the respondents are the original respondents and they are referred to as such hereafter.

(2.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 11.3.2011 passed by this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.334 of 2011, in Special Civil Application No.2903 of 2010, the applicant has preferred this application for review and seeking relief to recall the said judgment and to hear and decide Letters Patent Appeal No.334 of 2011 afresh.

(3.) IN light of the above-referred submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, we have again gone through judgment dated 11.3.2011 passed by us in Letters Patent Appeal No.334 of 2011 along with its record and proceedings of the Special Civil Application No.2903 of 2010. Paragraphs Nos.9 and 10 of order dated 7.4.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2903 of 2010, have also been reproduced in judgment dated 11.3.2011 delivered by us in Letters Patent Appeal No.334 of 2011. IN para 10 of order dated 7.4.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.2903 of 2010, the learned Single Judge has observed that issuing authority itself had made it clear that no such caste certificate was issued and on this solitary ground, he was not inclined to interfere in order dated 30.7.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Tribal Development, Gandhinagar. It is important to note that in the said para 10, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the grounds taken into consideration by respondent No.2, i.e. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Gandhinagar. Said order dated 30.7.2009 is at page Nos.23 to 27 of the record and proceedings of the Letters Patent Appeal No.334 of 2011. On page No.25 of said order dated 30.7.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Tribal Development, Gandhinagar, it had been specifically observed that Shri Pateliya Mavsinh Pratapsinh, i.e. present applicant, remained present before the Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 10.4.2008 and asked for three months' time to produce further evidence and the same was granted. But, Shri Pateliya Mavsinh Pratapsinh had not produced any further evidence. Though he remained present before the Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 16.1.2009, he did not produce any further evidence. He had given in writing that he would produce further evidence within 10 days and if he fails to do so, decision may be taken accordingly. On 8.6.2009, he remained present before the Scrutiny Committee and had produced Village Form No.7x12 as well as Form No.8A along with pedigree duly certified by Talati Sarpanch. But all these documents had already been produced earlier. From the above, one can easily come to a conclusion that in fact opportunities were given to the applicant by the Scrutiny Committee, but the applicant had not availed the same and there is no substance in the above-referred submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.