JUDGMENT ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.: Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner, as stated to be aggrieved by inaction on the part of Respondent No.2the Commissioner, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, (for short, “the BMC”) in not deciding the representation filed by the Petitioner to verify the caste certificate submitted by Respondent No.3 while seeking employment in question. The Petitioner’s prayers are as under:- “(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to forthwith enquire into the validity of the caste of the respondent No.3 and forthwith withdraw the benefits of employment, promotion and salary obtained by the respondent No.3 if the caste certificate submitted by the Respondent No.3 is found to be false and fabricated. (c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to refer the caste certificate submitted by the Respondent No.3 to the appropriate Caste Scrutiny Committee for its validity. (d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate civil, criminal and/or disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.3 for fraudulently seeking employment and consequential benefits.” 3. The Petitioner and Respondent No.3 are working with the BMC and at present holding same rank Deputy Chief Security Officer. The complaints/representations so filed by the Petitioner have been decided earlier by Respondent No.2 by reasoned orders by noting that this Court in Writ Petition filed by Respondent No.3, after considering the related issues, including the issue revolving around the caste certificate, passed order in favour of Respondent No.3 Dattatraya Harishchandra Patil, in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which read as follows:- “(a) …..the Respondent No.2 above-named and examining the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 02.1.1986 passed by the second Respondent, Exhibit “H” to the Petition, quash and set aside the same. (b) …..direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith revoke, cancel and rescind the impugned order dated 02.01.1986 Exhibit “H” to the petition and permit the Petitioner to avail of the permission opportunities and further continue him in service as before and declare that the Caste Certificate issued to him is valid and subsisting.” 4. Admittedly, Special Leave Petition filed against the order passed by this Court, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Admittedly, Special Leave Petition filed against the order passed by this Court, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. That resulted into attaining the finality so far as the order of this Court, as well as, the issue revolving around the caste certificate in question and its validity. All are bound by the Judgment and order passed in the matter. 5. Therefore, we see no case is made out by the Petitioner for the reliefs so prayed, including to reopen the caste issue of Respondent No.3. There is no justification and/or case is made out to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of above admitted position. 6. The submission revolving around the documents which are part of this Writ Petition, which were also part of earlier orders passed by the Courts. There is no change of circumstances revolving around the same caste certificates, no case is made out to direct Respondent No.2 BMC to pass order on the representations/complaints so filed by the Petitioner as prayed. 7. However, we are inclined to observe that, if it is a case of fraud and/or misrepresentation of any sort, the Petitioner is at liberty to invoke appropriate remedy, in accordance with law. 8. Writ Petition is dismissed. 9. Rule is discharged accordingly. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.