SAKTI through its Director, Rampachodavaram, E.G. Distt., A.P. Vs. R.K. Ragala & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 10754 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26248 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26248 of 1995)
Petitioner: SAKTI through its Director, Rampachodavaram, E.G. Distt., A.P.
Respondent: R.K. Ragala & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 10754 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26248 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26248 of 1995)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 06, 1995
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Reservations – Scheduled Tribes – Social status certificate – Proof of – Proceedings quashed by the High Court at the notice stage itself – Held that the High Court was not justified in exercising its powers to nip the action in the bud at the notice stage itself.
Cases Reffered:
1. Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri & Anr., JT 1995 (3) SC 684. (Para 3)
2. Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, JT 1994 (5) SC 488 = 1994 (6) SCC 241. (Para 3)
2. Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, JT 1994 (5) SC 488 = 1994 (6) SCC 241. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Permission to file S.L.P. is granted.
2. Leave granted.
3. Since the first respondent now stands retired from service, no useful purpose will be served to continue the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice which was quashed by the High Court. No doubt the High Court was not justified in exercising its power to nip the action in the bud at the notice stage itself. As regards the law, recently this Court has considered the controversy and laid the law in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner (JT 1994 (5) SC 488 = (1994) 6 SCC 241) and Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri & Anr. (JT 1995 (3) SC 684). The ratio of the High Court decision is no longer good law.
4. Under these circumstances, we think that no useful purpose will be served to continue the proceedings. However, if the children of the first respondent lay any claim on the basis that they are Scheduled Tribes, it would be open to the appropriate authorities to take appropriate decision or action as is warranted under law.
5. The appeal is disposed of with the above observations.
1. Permission to file S.L.P. is granted.
2. Leave granted.
3. Since the first respondent now stands retired from service, no useful purpose will be served to continue the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice which was quashed by the High Court. No doubt the High Court was not justified in exercising its power to nip the action in the bud at the notice stage itself. As regards the law, recently this Court has considered the controversy and laid the law in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner (JT 1994 (5) SC 488 = (1994) 6 SCC 241) and Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri & Anr. (JT 1995 (3) SC 684). The ratio of the High Court decision is no longer good law.
4. Under these circumstances, we think that no useful purpose will be served to continue the proceedings. However, if the children of the first respondent lay any claim on the basis that they are Scheduled Tribes, it would be open to the appropriate authorities to take appropriate decision or action as is warranted under law.
5. The appeal is disposed of with the above observations.
