Andhra Pradesh High Court · 1970
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 Sep 1970
- Bench
- BILAL NAZKI
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1 and 2 Respondents to delete the Synonym word of "Salivahana" with the word "Kummara"/ "Kulala" which is already included in the list of Backward Class approved in G.O.Ms.No. 28, Backward Classes Welfare (M1) Department, dated 24-06-1995 and to retain earlier G.O.Ms.No. 1973 Education, Dated 23-09-1970 of the caste "Kummara"/"Kulala" under Group 'B' at Sl.No. 8. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.K.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr.KRISHNAMURTHY NUTHALAPATI The Court made the following :
ORDER :
The Government Order No.28, dated 24th June, 1995 challenged by way of this writ petition, by which the Government ordered that the word ‘Salivahana’ be added as synonym to the word “Kummara/Kulala”, which is already notified as Backward Class in G.O.Ms.No.1793, Education, dated 23.09.1970. The petitioners do not dispute that the respondents No.3 & 4 who made a representation to the Commission and got this order passed, also belong to the community of “Kummara/Kulala”, but their grievance is that “Kummara/Kulala” should not be changed into ‘Salivahana’. I am afraid that this Court would not be in a position to go into the question whether ‘Salivahana’ was a synonym to “Kummara/ Kulala”, but it appears that the Government had passed an order the basis of recommendations made by A.P.Commission for Backward Classes and the recommendations have been made by the Commission after hearing all concerned parties including the petitioners. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, the Commission for Backward Classes is in place. If the petitioners have still any grievance, they can always approach the Commission. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ 17th March 2005 BILAL NAZKI, J To // TRUE COPY // ASST. REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The Secretary to Government Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, HYDERABAD. 2 The Chairman, A.P. Commission for Backward Classes, Hyderabad. 3 Two C.Cs. to the GP for Social Welfare, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 4 Two C.D. copies. Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LOBIS}
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 23 Sep 1970. The bench was BILAL NAZKI.
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.