AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. S. Thangkhiew, J
Heard Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. N.G. Shylla, learned Sr. GA is present on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
The prayer of the writ petitioner in the present writ application is for issuance of appropriate directions for an inquiry to be conducted, on the basis of the representation made by the writ petitioner for cancellation of the Scheduled Tribe certificate granted to the private respondent.
A perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the writ petitioner had approached the office of the Deputy Commissioner with an objection to the issuance of the Scheduled Tribe certificate, and that no action has been taken said on the application/representation.
Mrs. N.G. Shylla, learned Sr. GA appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3, has raised strong objections as to the maintainability of the writ petition, and submitted that it is not a matter to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. She further submits that the remedy of the writ petitioner lies with other forums and not before the High Court, at this stage.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and also perused the materials on record. It is seen that this matter is at a premature stage and no mandamus is called for at this stage, in view of the fact that the writ petitioner has not exhausted other alternate remedy before the concerned authorities.
Accordingly, this matter is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner is free to pursue other remedies before the appropriate authorities, for the prayer as made out in the writ petition.