1. The petition has taken out by the petitioner, seeking below mentioned relief and direction:
"5(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direction directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 17.05.2012 and thereby giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereby to decide the same within stipulated time limit of two weeks or within stipulated time fixed by the Honourable Court and thereby quashed and set aside the impugned action of the respondents which is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has clarified, during the hearing, that the petitioner has made a request-representation to the competent authority to issue Caste Certificate.
3. He has also clarified and reiterated that the request is made by the petitioner for and on behalf of her minor children and not for herself.
4. On further inquiry from the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has emerged that the maiden name of present petitioner is Meenaben Ramanlal Jani.
5. It has also emerged that on earlier occasion, she had married one Mr. Lalitkumar Tripathi.
6. From the said wedlock, the petitioner has two minor children, one daughter and one son.
7. Subsequently, she married one Mr. Kanubhai Solanki in the year 2000.
8. Now, the petitioner has, as aforesaid, made application for Caste Certificate in favour of her two children.
9. It is pertinent to again mention that the two children for whom the request has been made, are the children from her first marriage (i.e. with Mr. Lalitkumar Tripathi) and not from present marriage (i.e. with Mr. Kanubhai Solanki). Thus, the said issue is of serious consideration by the competent authority who shall have to examine with proper care and caution as to whether th children from first marriage with Mr. Lalitkumar Tripathi are entitled to claim such 'Caste Certificate' (i.e. Scheduled Caste Certificate).
10. Since present petition is restricted to the prayer for direction to the authority to decide the representation, this Court is not expressing any opinion at this stage as to whether the petitioner is justified in making such request and whether such request can be considered, in light of the legal position and applicable provisions, or not.
11. Such consideration is outside the scope of present petition.
12. Therefore, at this stage, the Court has not entered into the said issue and has not examined the said aspect on merits, while leaving the said issue for consideration by the competent authority.
13. Since in present petition, only request, which is made, is for appropriate direction to the competent authority to consider the representation, present petition is disposed of the following observations.
14. The competent authority may take up the representation of the petitioner for consideration and pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law and applicable provisions, policy and legal position settled by the decisions of the Court.
15. It is clarified that present order shall not be construed as an acceptance of the petitioner's request. It is clarified that the Court has not entered into the merits and has not expressed any opinion on merits. It will be for the authority to consider the issue independently and in accordance with law without being influenced by this order.
16. The petitioner has prayed that the impugned action of respondents may quash and set aside, however, there is no cause, which has to be set aside. Therefore, the said request of the petitioner is not even considered.
17. With the aforesaid clarification, the petition is disposed of.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.) Bharat* Top