S.C.& S.T. Action Committee vs State Of Kerala on 3 January, 2008
396) and Akhila Kerala (Hindu) Chemman Samajam V. Union of India (1994
(2) KLT 732) was not available in Madhavi Vs. Scrutiny Committee (2004 (3)
KLT 967).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)Documents citing
Madhavi vs Scrutiny Committee on 1 July, 2004
K.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2010
We are of the opinion that the cases of the parties to
these proceedings fall under the above category. Therefore, in
our opinion, neither Madhavi v. Scrutiny Committee [2004(3)
KLT 967] nor the Government Order G.O.(MS) No.37/06/SCSTDD
dated 28.07.2006, can bar or do bar such an enquiry.
S.Shanmughan vs State Of Kerala on 3 November, 2009
9. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant retired
on 30.04.2007 and ever since he appointed a watch man and he worked
and earned his livelihood. Referring to the Single Bench decision of this
Court in Sreekumari Vs. State of Kerala [2006 (1) KLT 144] where it
was held that false community certificate obtained prior to the Act 11 of
1996, the person cannot be prosecuted under the Act since the Act came
into force later in point of time and therefore it is contended that even
though Government has to pass consequential orders in the factual
situation, he had worked and earned the salary and in the light of the
decision of this Court in Madhavi Vs. Scrutiny Committee [2004 (3)
MFA No. 204 of 2006
9
KLT 967] the prosecution is also not legally permissible. So the
appellant contends that this is a fit case where no action against him be
taken. The Government is yet to take a decision in the matter and we
cannot pre empt an order at this stage. If any of the submissions
according to the appellant is not considered while passing the
consequential orders certainly that is a matter which the appellant can
challenge in separate proceedings. We have no doubt in our mind that
this aspect will be considered by the Government while passing
consequential orders. Subject to the above, the appeal is dismissed. No
cost.
K.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 29 May, 2008
The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order of the Government,
whereby it has been clarified that Peruvannan is not a synonym of
Vannan/Mannan/Peruvannan communities shown in serial number 37
of the Constitution(Scheduled Castes) Orders (Second Amendment)
Act, 2002, and hence no correction of caste name from Peruvannan
which is included in the list of OBC and OEC to
Vannan/Mannan/Peruvannan(Scheduled Caste) communities be made
on this count. Ext.P7 order has been issued pursuant to the judgment
of the Division Bench of this court in Madhavi vs. Scrutiny
Committee (2004 (3) KLT 967). The petitioners contention is that,
that judgment was rendered without taking into account Ext.P1 order
passed by the Government as early as on 13.9.1958. Whether the
Division Bench decision has been rendered taking into account Ext.P1
or not, the same is binding on me and I cannot take a different view in
this writ petition. Since Ext.P7 has been passed in accordance with the
said judgment, following the judgment this writ petition is dismissed.
1