Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)

K. Kaveri vs State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee on 2 November, 2010

In this connection, we are also fortified by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in (K.L. Karibeeran and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another) AIR 1995 Madras 292 wherein it was held that "The community of 'Kurumans' is different from the community of 'Kurumbas'. Just because the State Government has made a recommendation to the Central Government to include the castes 'Kurumbas' or 'Kurubas' in the list of Scheduled Tribes, it is not open to High Court to hold that 'Kurumans' 'Kurumbas' 'Kurubas' etc., are all referring to the same community" In the said judgment, in para-27, it was further held that "None of the materials placed before us by the petitioners prove that the names of "Kurumans", "Kurumbas", "Kurubas" etc., are all the names of one community or that they are synonymous. Even from the materials available, we find that there were different groups of people, one known by the name "Kurumans" and the other known by the name "Kurumba" or "Kuruba". Their life-styles were different and they were pursuing different avocations. In view of the conflicting materials placed before us, we are unable to accept the contentions put forward by the petitioners."
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document

K. Kaveri vs State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee on 2 November, 2010

In this connection, we are also fortified by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in (K.L. Karibeeran and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another) AIR 1995 Madras 292 wherein it was held that "The community of 'Kurumans' is different from the community of 'Kurumbas'. Just because the State Government has made a recommendation to the Central Government to include the castes 'Kurumbas' or 'Kurubas' in the list of Scheduled Tribes, it is not open to High Court to hold that 'Kurumans' 'Kurumbas' 'Kurubas' etc., are all referring to the same community" In the said judgment, in para-27, it was further held that "None of the materials placed before us by the petitioners prove that the names of "Kurumans", "Kurumbas", "Kurubas" etc., are all the names of one community or that they are synonymous. Even from the materials available, we find that there were different groups of people, one known by the name "Kurumans" and the other known by the name "Kurumba" or "Kuruba". Their life-styles were different and they were pursuing different avocations. In view of the conflicting materials placed before us, we are unable to accept the contentions put forward by the petitioners."
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document

M.Ulagappan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 18 July, 2016

Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1819 of 2010 (C.Dorali and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) rep. by the Secretary and others), W.P.No.11933 of 1983 and 3238 of 1984 (K.L.Karibeeran and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and another) and Order passed by the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6909 of 2015 (Sannasi v. The Commissioner / Secretary, State Level Scrutiny Committee, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai  600 009 and others) to substantiate that the Respondent has passed the impugned orders only in accordance with law.
1