http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: SAKTI THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,RAMPACHODAVAIAM, E.G. DISTT., A.P

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: R.K. RAGALA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/11/1995

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Permission to file S.L.P. Is granted.      Leave granted.      Since the  first respondent  now  stands  retired  from service, no  useful purpose  will be  served to continue the proceedings pursuant  to the  show cause  notice  which  was quashed by  the High  Court. No doubt the High Court was not justified in  exercising its  power to nip the action in the bud at the notice stage itself. As regards the law, recently this Court  has considered  the controversy and laid the law in Kumari  Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner [(1994) 6 SCC  241] and  Director of  Tribal Welfare,  Government of A.P. vs.  Laveti Giri & Anr. [JT 1995 (3) SC 684]. The ratio of the High Court decision is no longer good law.      Under these  circumstances, we  think  that  no  useful purpose will be served to continue the proceedings. However, if the children of the first respondent lay any claim on the basis that  they are  Scheduled Tribes,  it would be open to the appropriate  authorities to take appropriate decision or action as is warranted under law.      The appeal is disposed of with the above observations.