Gehanaji BIn Kes Patil and ors. Vs. Ganpati BIn Lakshuman and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
public obstruction - right of suit. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. - the statement of facts in the report of that case is meagre, but we gather from the argument that some injury to the plaintiff, personally arising from the obstruction complained of, must have been alleged. the plaint in the present case having been read to us, we fail to perceive that any particular injury, resulting to the plaintiffs themselves, is alleged on their behalf;michael westropp, c.j.1. in order to sustain this action, the plaintiffs were bound to show that they themselves had suffered some particular inconvenience by the conduct of the defendants: baroda prasad v. gora chand 3 beng. l.r 295; s.c. 12. cal. w.r., 160 civ. rul:), per peacock, c.j., followed in raj luckhee debia v. chander kant chawdry 14 beng. l.r., 173. the case of jina ranchod v. jodha ghela (l bom; h.c. rep. 1) does not seem to be inconsistent with this. the statement of facts in the report of that case is meagre, but we gather from the argument that some injury to the plaintiff, personally arising from the obstruction complained of, must have been alleged. the plaint in the present case having been read to us, we fail to perceive that any particular injury, resulting to the plaintiffs themselves, is alleged on their behalf; we must, therefore, affirm with costs the decrees of the courts below which rejected their suit.