Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Director Of Tribal Welfare, Government ... vs Laveti Giri And Another on 18 April, 1995
In Director of Tribal Welfare v. Laveti Giri (supra), the Supreme Court had categorically observed that it would be for the Central Government to appropriately deal with the matter by giving some leverage to the State Governments to modulate the rules conformable to the law keeping in view the guidelines as far as possible to suit the conditions prevailing in the State concerned so that they could be worked out in a systematic manner without any difficulty in implementation.
S. Kavitha vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 29 October, 1997
12. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. The interim relief stands vacated. It is open for the third respondent to take appropriate action in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 1469 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kavitha v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra). No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
P. Kumaresan, Working President, All ... vs The Chairman, Railway Board, ... on 3 January, 2007
10. The submission of Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, that the State has to provide appeal to the State Level Committee against the decision of the District Level Committee is required to be stated only to be rejected. In the first place it can be seen that the scheme formulated by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patils case postulates that the order passed by the Three Member Committee canceling the community certificates shall be final and conclusive and only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It appears that though at one stage, a letter was issued by the Secretary to the Government, Adi-Dravida Welfare Department dated 27.12.1999 stating that the order of the District Level Vigilance Committee shall be appelable to the State Level Committee, there is no appeal remedy provided in any of the Governmental Orders against the decision of the Three Member District Level Vigilance Committee. It is clarified by the learned Government Pleader that in view of the letter of the Secretary, the District Level Committees are mechanically making an endorsement in the order that the appeal would like to the State Level Committee, though such an appeal is not provided by the State Government in any of its G.Os. In fact, learned Government Pleader has submitted before us that it is the policy decision of the Government not to provide any appeal against the decision of the District Level Vigilance Committee and in fact such policy decision is in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patils case. Our attention was also drawn to the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1714 of 2001 (The Scheduled Tribe Employees Welfare Association v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and five others) decided on 08.08.2005 wherein it was held that absence of an appeal remedy to test the decision of the State Level Committee in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patils case cannot be a ground to invalidate the Government Order. We, therefore, hold that there is no infirmity in the constitution of the three member District Level Vigilance Committee and the same is in conformity with the scheme formulated in Madhuri patils case. The decision by the District Level Vigilance Committee is final and no further appeal would lie to the State Level Committee and the remedy of the aggrieved party is to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 January, 2004
12. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. The interim relief stands vacated. It is open for the third respondent to take appropriate action in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 1469 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kavitha v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra). No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
C. Kavitha vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 3 January, 2001
In C.Kavitha v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Division Bench comprising of V.S.Sirpurkar, J (as he then was) and M.Chockalingam, J upholding the above order of the learned single Judge observed as follows:
1