SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(SC) 306

D.A.DESAI, A.N.SEN
State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Abhay – Respondent


Advocates:
ARUNA MATHUR, C.G.MADKHOLKAR, J.VAD, K.PARASARAN ATTORNEY, M.N.SHROFF, V.A.BOBDE

Judgment

ORDER: We are not inclined to grant special leave in this matter. However, before we reject the same we want to make it specifically clear that the findings recorded by the High Court in the writ petition filed. before it and from the judgment of which the present special leave petition arises shall remain confined and be held applicable only to the petitioner before the High Court who is respondent before us and none else By this we mean that the certificate issued in favour of the respondent candidate shall remain valid in his. favour on the. footing that he qualified for the reservation, But the larger question decided by the High Court as to whether Halba is a Scheduled Tribe and entitled to reservation is kept open and it would be always open to the State of Maharashtra and any other competent authority to raise that question and the same shall be dealt with on merits and not held concluded by the Judgment under appeal.

2. To avoid disputes like the present one where admission is granted on a provisional certificate which is liable to be varied or cancelled at a later stage causing irreparable harm and deep frustration to the candidate who secured coveted admission on a


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top