Telangana High Court
WP/28601/2009 of Dr.C.Vasudev,A-2/93, Vishalkhand, Gomti Nagar Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary on 29 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28601 of 2009 Date: 29.12.2009 Between: Dr.C.Vasudev …Petitioner and The Govt of A.P.., rep. by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.28601 of 2009
Date: 29.12.2009
Between:
Dr.C.Vasudev
…Petitioner
and
The Govt of A.P.., rep. by itsSecretary, Social Welfare Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.28601 of 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner studied M.B.B.S. and Post Graduate medicalcourses by claiming benefit of reservation as a Scheduled Tribecandidate.
The District Collector, Kadapa – 3[rd] respondent initiatedproceedings against the petitioner under the A.P. SCs STs BCs(Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates)Rules, 1997 on a complaint received by the A.P. Girijana SevaSangham, Kadapa. After enquiry by the District level ScrutinyCommittee, the 3[rd] respondent passed order dated 14.11.2009cancelling the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner. The sameis challenged in this petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedGovernment Pleader for Social Welfare.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced severalcontentions while challenging the validity of the impugned order. However, it is evident that the petitioner has already availed astatutory remedy by filing an appeal before the 1[st] respondentagainst the impugned order. The appellate authority would be in abetter position to appreciate the matter from various angles. Sincethe petitioner availed alternative remedy by filing an appeal beforethe 1[st] respondent against the impugned order, this Court is notinclined to entertain the writ petition. However, the interest of thepetitioner needs to be protected till the 1[st] respondent disposes ofthe application submitted by the petitioner for stay.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that theproceedings dated 14.11.2009 issued by the 3[rd] respondent shallremain suspended till the 1[st] respondent pass order on theapplication submitted by the petitioner for stay. There shall be noorder as to costs.
December 29, 2009BVV
_________________________
JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY