Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Nityanand Sharma & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 February, 1996
The applicant describes herself as a public-spirited
individual and social worker, serving as the Patron of the Tribal
Social Welfare Trust, a registered public charitable organization
focused on the upliftment and protection of the rights of
Scheduled Tribes across India. She claims to have initiated
multiple complaints and representations regarding the
petitioner's alleged fraudulent use of a Scheduled Tribe (ST)
caste certificate to secure employment and subsequent benefits
in the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), including his
initial appointment as Assistant Environmental Engineer in 1997
and his later role as Member Secretary in 2023. These
complaints were lodged with bodies such as the National
Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), Central Vigilance
Commission (CVC), Prime Minister's Office (PMO), and the
General Administration Department (GAD), Bihar, between
2023 and 2025, allegedly leading to the caste verification
proceedings challenged in the main writ petition. The applicant
asserts that the petitioner's caste certificate, declaring him as
Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026
3/16
belonging to the "Lohar" caste under ST, was provisional and
invalidated by Bihar Government Circular No. 43 dated
23.03.1996, following the Supreme Court's judgment in
Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar, (1996) 3 SCC 576, yet he
continued to avail benefits. She highlights her role in pursuing
these complaints, including appearances before NCST and
representations to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change (MoEFCC), and argues that her intervention is
necessary in public interest to safeguard ST rights from misuse.
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 8 November, 2012
In the case of
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph 9 has categorically observed as hereunder:
S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 December, 1981
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P.
Gupta v. Union of India, reported in (1981) Supp SCC 87,
while liberalizing locus standi for genuine public causes,
emphasized that relaxation is permissible only where there is a
violation of Constitutional Rights or Public Interest is at stake,
and even then, the petitioner must act bona fide without ulterior
motive. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 17 of the
said judgement has held as follows:
Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary And Ors. on 28 August, 1992
8. Similarly, in the case of Janata Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court cautioned against misuse and in paragraph no.
64 has held as follows:
Madhuri Patil vs . Additional Commissioner, Tribal ... on 22 July, 2005
10. The mere fact that the applicant initiated
complaints leading to the verification proceedings does not
entitle her to party status in subsequent judicial review.
Administrative inquiries into caste certificates, governed by
guidelines in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional
Commissioner, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 71, are quasi-judicial
Patna High Court CWJC No.9935 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026
9/16
processes between the certificate holder and the designated
authorities; complainants are informants, not necessary parties.
Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 4 March, 1992
12. The power under Order I Rule 10 CPC is
discretionary and strictly circumscribed, as laid down in
Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corpn. of
Greater Bombay, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524. Paragraph no.
6 of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced hereinbelow:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors on 18 January, 2010
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, reported in (2010) 3
SCC 402, issued guidelines to curb misuse of PIL/interventions.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 143 of the said
judgement held as follows: -
Gurusamy R. vs District Collector And Ors. on 23 November, 1998
This principle finds support in R. Gurusamy v. District
Collector, reported in 1998 SCC OnLine Mad 809. The relevant
paragraph of the judgement is reproduced hereinbelow: