Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH versus THE COLLECTOR

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.Sampangiramaiah v. The Collector - W.P.No.2619 of 1999 [2003] RD-TN 309 (7 April 2003)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 07/04/2003

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN

W.P.No.2619 of 1999

V.Sampangiramaiah .. Petitioner -Vs-

The Collector

Dharmapuri

Dharmapuri District. .. Respondent Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.P.Mohan Raj For respondent : Mr.P.Chandrasekaran Special Govt. Pleader :ORDER



The petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Va.Pa.11/89 (F1) dated 29.1.1999, to quash the same and to direct the respondent to restore the petitioner's Community Certificate cancelled by the respondent.

2. Without going into the merits of the case, I am obliged to quash the impugned proceedings dated 29.1.1999 and remit the matter to the District Level Caste Vigilance committee, with a direction to hold an enquiry with regard to the request of the petitioner for issuance of community certificate, decide as to whether the petitioner belongs to Kurumans Community, which is a Schedule Tribe community, and pass appropriate orders on the same within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, in compliance of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the enquiry, failing which, the matter shall be proceeded with by the District Level Caste Vigilance Committee ex-parte. Applying the ratio laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS V. A.GURUSAMY reported in JT 1997 (3) SC 346 and the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MILIND reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4, it is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled for any further promotion or any other benefit which are meant for Scheduled Tribe candidates, pending final decision in the above matter.

The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Index: Yes

Internet: Yes

ksv

To:

The Collector

Dharmapuri

Dharmapuri District.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.