Smt Kamakshi D/O Thangavelu vs The Commissioner on 12 January, 2009

0
38
Karnataka High Court
Smt Kamakshi D/O Thangavelu vs The Commissioner on 12 January, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy

-i..

IN THE HIGH com? or u .k

DATED THIS THE 12%: IJAY: 0§r.jAN'{3%ARj¥,

A
THE HONBLE MR.JLIsTICE REDDY

REVIEW Péffmcifs ‘4;’§?§*QF 2008 «
IN WRIT PEITITION I$5o;’ vi3’5’ZQ”/’2′{){)_t’}. (GM-CC)

BETWEEN:

Sm’ KAMAKSVEEI D-;I:.:_> THE-£N’GAVELE,?… ‘
AGED ABoI.;T–i.4<2.VYEAIe«$;"~!; ..
KAMAE:£x–VB,EL3HI,':3;R.IR;x:\i~GAPA"r;&:A TOWN,
MANDYA £;)Is':*;m::i:, _ '

'– V " PETITIGNER

{By Sri ; JAGDzsxH1S'£J§Asf_r!Ri, ADV )

1: T.'§fr«1£; {'Ct:.§zi:y11ss1oNE:R

" -. BACEKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPT.
AND A_.¥'PELLATE AUTHORFFY FOR CASTE
A'ND"I'NCOME CERTIFICATE VEREFICATION,
"BANGALORE.

A 5]’ ‘E THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAERMAN

‘ DISTIECT CASTE AND iNC€)h/IE VERIFICATION
COMMITTEE, MANDYA DISTRICT’.

.3 TAHASILDAR

SR,¥R£§NGAPAT’NA ‘FQ.,

MANDYA ::>£s’;*. _ A
W\

-3-

Haridas Das -17- (13122. Rani Bani}: (Smt)

Apex Court while eonside:’ix1g_,»tb..e juristiicfieet’ .L_1:ed’erV’

Order 47 Rule 1 held that

highlighted all the .__{:as_e not”?

have argued more f0reefuHyt,—et”‘L_eited. binéiin-g peecedents
to get a favourable permissible in 31

review.

3. fiafiiitfg rega.rxd*v.’t_’t;o:_’i:he:§aferesaid authoritative
pronc:i;1nce1iie:1t…__df.At1″:e ‘a§t:xfcourt What requires to be
considered’ in 1312:; .eas}.eiS, whether the petitiener has

maé;e”013t a eaeev of error apparent on the face of the

A1«m~q

t’ 4.’. .”e:I;eea1′;1ed counsel for the review petitioner

“v..,vehezr1e;éjtly contends that the petitioner beiongs to ‘Vani

caste in the State ef Tamil Nadu a. synonym of

K in the State ef Karnataka and this aspect of the

_; X’
3 (?0C¥6} 4 SCC ’58

,4-

matter having not been considered by this

error apparent on the face of the record.

5. In the erder, Subject __:1f;.e.t_1;er _of “rez%ie1#f’; .4_i’«:V is

noticed that the transfer certifioete the

where the petitioner peSee:;fI_out ” ::e2*tifie$ “ehe ” V

belongs to ‘Hindu Va:1i3hette¢e’V:.e:1’d’»-.g3.e aflniattef of fact

no maierial is fortiio’o~:I1i;t2.g.7*fa:o eS?e.b1ish that the

petitionei’beiorxgei?-£20 “C}gI2ige””‘a”1iofified backward Class.

This courf to the findings of facts by

the _C_aste~’y’e:*ifieatioi1*~’ Committee as wel}. as the

A11the1’ii§s’;”V In the aforesaid premise, this

,_V_e5o1e19i,. ereer itneugxed heid met by invoking

Af£i_e}e 227 of the Constitution of India, the

‘~’~__ ‘-».petitio’1:sV__eannot be trensfommed into an appeal and this

A an appeliate court to go into the “adequacy er

…iIf§e.deq:1aCy of the Inateria} on which the authorities

V recorded their reasons, fmdings and conclusions;

1 .5’

M

-5..

6. In my considered opinion, t11e1*;%.é:”is..1f§o-”

apparent on the face of the1*¢cs )’rd_, ‘

ixzterference.

The review petition V«’jif,hOi}.{ . ;::1′}’c§rit § and is,
accordingly rejected;

1′ Sd/1..

% Judge

Ln.

far’ ‘

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here