SH. A. CHINNAPPA versus SH V. VENKATAMUNI AND ORS.

SH. A. CHINNAPPA versus SH V. VENKATAMUNI AND ORS.

Mondy/Mondigaru does not find place in the Presidential notification or amendments, so appellant's status as Mundala cannot be considered equivalent; appellant does not qualify as Scheduled Caste for reserved election.

Parties
Appellant: SH. A. CHINNAPPA; Respondent: SH V. VENKATAMUNI; Respondent: ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 30.4.87 of the Karnataka High Court in E.p. 21 of 1985
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Presidential Notification, Reserved Constituency, Inclusion and Exclusion of Castes
Constitutional Law Election Law Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Presidential Notification Reserved Constituency Inclusion and Exclusion of Castes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SH. A. CHINNAPPA

Appellant

SH V. VENKATAMUNI

Respondent

ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 30.4.87 of the Karnataka High Court in E.p. 21 of 1985

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the status of Mondy/Mondigaru can be considered as Mundala – a Scheduled Caste synonym for the purpose of election to the Legislative Assembly

Ratio Decidendi

Mondy/Mondigaru does not find place in the Presidential notification or amendments, so appellant's status as Mundala cannot be considered equivalent; appellant does not qualify as Scheduled Caste for reserved election.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.