Wnti'etition (S)No. 3201 of 2007 v. State of Chliattisgarh & ofhers
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wnti'etition (S)No. 3201 of 2007 Petitioners Kamla Nag Versus Respondents State of Chliattisgarh & ofhers WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDJA, (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for fhe petitiouer. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Law-yer for the respondents No. 1 to 5. None for fhe respondent No.6, despite service of notice.
ORDERIOral) (Passed on this 2 Ist day of October, 2009) Heard. The chatlenge ia this petition is to the report dated 11.12.2006 (Aanexure P/15), whereby the Sub Divisional OfBcer (Revenue), Rratappur, District - Surguja has found that fhe petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. Accordiagly, by order dated 19.4.2007 (Aanexure P/18) the CoUector, Surguja directed tlie Sub Divisional Officer, Pratappur to lodge F.I.R. against ftie petitioner and take appropriate steps. This Court on 14.6.2007 stayed fhe effect and operation off he im.pugned order dated 19.4.2007. It appears that the authorities have taken steps agaiast the petitioner on the basis of fhe report subnutted by fhe Sub Divisional Officer (Revenuej, Pratappur. The petitioner had ab-eady obtained caste certificate froiu Tahsfldar, Pratappur. It is weU settied fhat fhe Siib Divisional Officer (Revenue) is not conipetent to niake aa enquiry in the light of the obsen?ations made by fhe Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Comm*'. Tribuaal Development1 aad State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Ravi Prafaaslt Babulal Sing Parmar2. Ifthere is aay dispute wifh regard to the social status of a person, fhe ^ Jl
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.