SUNITA GOWARDHAN KUTEMATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No. 1050 of 1998 has been filed by petitioner on 6-4-1998. The petitioner is working as a Primary Teacher with Zilla Parishad, Akola. She is seeking to challenge the order dated 6-11-1997 whereby the caste certificate issued in her favour come to be invalidated by the respondent No. 2, the Committee for scrutiny and verification of tribe claims, Nagpur. When this petition came up for motion hearing on 6-4-1998, the order was "notice before admission, returnable in two weeks. " No interim relief, as prayed for, was granted in favour of the petitioner. On the subsequent date of hearing i. e. 17-10-1998, this Court was pleased to send for records and proceedings only. The petition since april 1998 is pending for admission though it came up before this Court for hearing from time to time i. e. on 11-9-1998, 9-11-1998, 2-12-2002, 9-12-2002, 13-1-2003 and 28-1-2003.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 brought to our notice that the very same petitioner has filed another petition challenging the very same order passed by the respondent No. 2 invalidating her caste claim, being Writ petition No. 3836 of 1998. In this writ petition, the petitioner could obtain favourable orders from another Division Bench of this Court on 16-12-1998, reading as under: "rule. Interim relief in terms of para 2 of prayers. " it was thus brought to our notice that even though the petitioner was unsuccessful in obtaining rule and, interim relief in the earlier instituted petition being writ Petition No. 1050 of 1998, the very same petitioner against identical impugned order could obtain rule and interim relief from another Division Bench.

(3.) THE above facts came to light because of the order of this Court in Writ petition No. 1050 of 1998 wherein the order to send for record and proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee was made. The record and proceedings of both the writ petition being common the cat came out of back. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, in the circumstances of the case, requested that both petitions be placed on board so as to consider the impact of the conduct of the petitioner in indulging in such type of game while invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, both these petitions vide our order dated 28-1-2003 were ordered to be tagged together and were order to be placed before this Court for consideration.