IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Stay Vacation Application No. 8355 of 2010 In Writ Petition (S/B) No. 172 of 2010 Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. ….…… Petitioner. V e r s u s Uttarakhand SC and ST Commission and others ………. Respondents. Mr. Arvind Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naresh Pant and Mr. Chimsya Sharma, Advocates for the non-applicant / petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the applicant / respondent No. 1. Date of Judgment: 08.12.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) The application, which has been listed today, is for vacation of an interim order passed by this Court. In the writ petition, it was contended that Uttarakhand Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission is not legally empowered to call upon petitioner – Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. to alter its select list, in as much as Uttarakhand Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission is not empowered to do so by the Act, by which it has been constituted. The Court, being prima facie satisfied that Uttarakhand Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission does not have such power, has granted a stay of the direction of the said Commission upon the petitioner, as impugned in the writ petition. 2. In the application for vacating the interim order, it is the contention of Uttarakhand Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission that it did not issue any such direction upon the petitioner, instead, as entitled to, it made a recommendation to the State Government for taking appropriate action. 2 3. That being the situation, it is clear that Uttarakhand Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission was not seeking to enforce its direction purporting that Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. should alter its select list. Even otherwise, if Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. is of the view that Uttarakhand Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission has no power to ask Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. to alter its select list, until such time, the direction to that effect was sought to be implemented by the Commission by taking recourse to coercive steps, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. simply could ignore the direction of the Commission. 4. Taking the aforementioned things into account, we dispose of the writ petition. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 08.12.2010 08.12.2010 Amit