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

2011 Supreme(UK) 586

TARUN AGARWALA
MONIKA RANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.M. Raturi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was born in Rishikesh, District Dehradun in the year 1981 and is living with her parents in this town where she was brought up. The petitioner did her schooling and graduation from Rishikesh. The petitioner's father was born in Jwalapur in District Haridwar in the year 1951 and served in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (IDPL) since 1977, which is located in Rishikesh. The petitioner retired in the year 2003 and after retirement, is still living in Rishikesh. The petitioner's contention is that she is a permanent resident of Rishikesh.

3. The petitioner contends that she is a Scheduled Caste belonging to 'Balmiki community and, in this regard, the petitioner's father was issued a caste certificate by the Tehsildar, Dehradun, on 22th August, 1979, indicating therein that the petitioner's father is a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was also issued a caste certificate by the Tehsildar, Dehradun,

dated 16.11.1995, indicating that the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste belonging to 'Balmiki' community. On 8th February, 2












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