Kankipati Venkata Krishna Padal v. The District Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Mar 2006
- Bench
- B PRAKASH RAO
Outcome
Allowed
is much prior to the Act coming into force, the review application is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
The only question involved in this review is as to the competency for cancellation of any Caste Certificate under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Communities) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (16 of 1993) (‘the Act’ for brevity).
Operative part
There is no dispute to the fact that in the present case, the District Revenue Officer concerned passed the order on 08.10.1993. However, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the review applicant submits that the said Act 16/1993 came into force w.e.f. 15.06.1997 interpreting the said provisions but not earlier. This Court has taken a view that the Collector of the District alone is competent to cancel any caste certificate but not the District Revenue Officer under the provisions of the Act. Having regard to the same and in view of the error apparent on the face of the record that the District Revenue Officer passed order of cancellation on 08.10.1993, which is much prior to the Act coming into force, the review application is allowed. Consequently, Writ Petition No.5312 of 1994 stands dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 10th March 2006 RRB
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: is much prior to the Act coming into force, the review application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 10 Mar 2006. The bench was B PRAKASH RAO.
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.