SAKTI versus STATE OF A.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 1024 · Decided: 24-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 1024 
y 
A 
SAKTI 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2805 of 2000) 
APRIL 24, 2009 
8 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled 
c Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2003 - s. 12 - Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 
1989 - s.21 - Writ petition praying for appointment of Officer 
for initiating prosecution for contravention of provisions of 
1989 Act- Dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: The 
two Acts operate in flt10 different fields - So far as s.21 of the 
~ .... 
D 
Central Act is concerned, it is the duty of the State 
Government to take such measure as may be necessary for 
effective implementation of the Act and that includes the 
appointment of the officers in initiating or exercising for 
E supervision over prosecutions for the contravention of the 
provisions of the Act - State Government to take immediate 
steps for appointment in terms of s.21(2) of the Central Act. 
l 
• 
The appellant filed a writ petition praying for 
appointment of an Officer, inspiring confidence in 
F accordance with Section 21 of Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 
(Central Act) for initiating prosecution for contravention 
of the provisions of the 1989 Act and for ensuring safety 
to the S.Ts residing in Jeelugumilli, Buttaryagudem, 
~ 
G Polavaram, T. Narasapuram and Gopalapuram Mandals 
~ 
of West Godavari District. 
The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding 
that the provisions of the A.P. State Commission for 
H 
1024 
SAKTI v. STATE OF AP. & ORS. 
1025 
~ 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2003 (State 
A 
• 
Act) and the notification issued thereunder on 7.11.2003 
constituting a Commission is to discharge such 
functions as are envisaged under Section 12 of the 2003 
Act which are comprehensively enough and that the 
appellant can approach the Commission for redressal of B 
its grievances. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that 
the State and the Central Act operate in different fields 
and, therefore, one cannot be a substitute for the other. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: A bare perusal of the two provisions i.e. 
Section 12 of the A.P. State Commission for Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2003 and Section 21 
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
D 
.., 
/> 
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 leaves no manner of 
doubt that they operate in two different fields. So far as 
Section 21 of the Central Act is concerned, it is the duty 
of the State Government to take such measure as may 
be necessary for effective implementation of the Act and 
E 
that includes the appointment of the officers in initiating 
or exercising for supervision over prosecutions for the 
contravention of the provisions of the Act. Section 12(b) 
> "' 
of the State Act relates to investigation and monitoring 
of all matters relating to safeguards provided for the 
F 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the 
Constitution or under any other law for the time being in 
force or under any order of the Government and to 
evaluate the working of such safeguards. The State 
Government is directed to take immediate steps for G 
-
appointment in terms of Section 21(2) of the Central Act. 
j 
· ···~[Paras 7 and 9] [1029-A-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2805 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 08.11.2004 of the High 
H 
1026 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 6 S.C.R. 
'r' 
A Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 
11543 of 1999. 
-
R. Venkataramani, Satya Mitra Garg Alzo for the 
Appellants. 
B 
A.G. Chaudhary, Manoj Saxena, R. Kr. Singh, Rahul 
Shukla and T.V. George for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing 
the writ petition filed by the appellant. Prayer in the writ petition 
was as follows: 
(1) to appoint an Officer, inspiring confidence in 
D 
accordance with Section 21 of Scheduled Castes and 
~ -
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Central Act') for initiating 
prosecution for contravention of the provisions of the 
Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 
E 
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for ensuring safety to the S.Ts 
residing in Jee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.