Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
K. Kaveri vs State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee on 2 November, 2010 cites

State Of Maharashtra vs Milind & Ors on 28 November, 2000

In this context, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Constitution bench of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and others) 2001 1 SCC 4 wherein in para No. 36 (2), the Honourable Supreme Court held that "The Scheduled Tribes Ordermust be read as it is. It is not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it. In this case, the dispute is whether the petitioner belonged to 'Kurumba' 'Kuruman' or 'Kurumbar' community. The authority to decide the communal status of the petitioner is the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the Government as per the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court. The Committee, after scrutinising the materials on record and after giving personal hearing to the petitioner, held in detail that the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner certifying that he belonged to 'Kuruman' community is invalid and cancelled it. Therefore, it is not open to thepetitioner to say that there is only a small word different between the communities such as 'Kurumba' 'Kuruman' or 'Kurumbar' community and that the committee failed to take into consideration the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his favour. It is neither for the Tribunal or for the Court to interpret the certificate issued in favour of a person certifying that he belonged to a particular community. It is only for the committee to go into the question as to whether a person belonged to a particular community or not and pass orders, which was precisely done in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 616 - S V Patil - Full Document

Gulzar Singh vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate And Anr. on 22 January, 1999

In an identical situation, the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (M. Ponnambalam vs. The District Collector, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli and others) 2002 (1) MLJ 411 found that even in respect of discreet enquiry fairness would require that the statements made therein should be put to the appellant before the final decision is taken following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Gulzar Singh vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1999) 3 SCC 107. In Para No.6 and 7, it was held as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

K.L. Karibeeran And Another vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Another on 8 July, 1994

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 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M. Ponnambalam vs The District Collector, ... on 12 October, 2001

In an identical situation, the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (M. Ponnambalam vs. The District Collector, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli and others) 2002 (1) MLJ 411 found that even in respect of discreet enquiry fairness would require that the statements made therein should be put to the appellant before the final decision is taken following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Gulzar Singh vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1999) 3 SCC 107. In Para No.6 and 7, it was held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - A K Rajan - Full Document
1