Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)Article 342 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 341 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure vs State Of Maharashtra &. Others on 15 March, 1996
19. Accordingly, the petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 25.9.2003 at Annexure "A" to the petitions issued by the Director of Developing Castes Welfare Department are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents shall give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to lead such other and further evidence as they may desire to adduce and to make such other and further representations as they may desire within one month from today and the respondents shall also give the petitioners or their representatives an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter the respondents, particularly, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall decide by 31st May, 2004 whether the petitioners belong to the community of "Muslim Julayas" or whether they belong to any Socially and Educationally Backward Class for the purposes of Article 15(4) and Article 16(4), in accordance with law and in light of the observations made by the Apex Court in para 18 of the decision in Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (3) SCC 685 which are already quoted in para 14 of this judgment and in light of the other observations made in this judgment.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
Even proceeding on the basis that Article 340 read with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 117 of the judgment in Indra Sawhney's case contemplate that the Commission is to identify the SEBCs within each State, there is nothing in the provisions of Article 340 or in the decision in the case of Indra Sawhney or in the State of Maharashtra vs. Milind (Supra) to take away the powers of the State Government under Article 15(4) of the Constitution to make any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. Unlike Articles 341 and 342, Article 340 does not provide as to which community shall, for the purposes of this Constitution (including Article 15(4)), be deemed to be a socially and educationally backward class, nor does Article 340 provide that it is only the Parliament or State Legislature which can make inclusion in or exclusion from the list of SEBCs. Even so, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in para 117 of the said case, while it would be legitimate for the State Government to entrust the work of identification of SEBCs to a Commission constituted under Article 340 of the Constitution, the State Government cannot decline to look into any representation from any community to the effect that the community is already covered by the list of SEBCs or that that particular community "B" is synonymous to the community "A" already included in the list of SEBCs.