Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS. versus K. BALU AND ANR.

Decided
23 February 2018
Judges listed
DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Directions issued

Citations

Official
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 671 · 2018 INSC 188

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

MAs/IAs have been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh seeking parity of treatment with the State of Uttarakhand. In the case of the State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court by its order dated 31 March 2017 had observed thus: “26.Insofar as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, we are of the view that the exemption which has been granted earlier in respect of areas failing under local bodies with a population of 20,000 will sufficiently protect the interest of the State. No further relaxation is granted over and above what has already been stated in that regard.”

p. 672, margin C

2

In the case of the State of Uttarakhand, an order was passed by this Court on 4 August 2017 in MA No. 470 of 2017 in Civil Appeal Nos 12164-12166 of 2016 (State of Tamil Nadu v K Balu) in the following terms : “2. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand, and keeping in view the additional affidavit dated 17.7.2017 filed in this behalf, we are of the view, that the prayer made by the learned counsel deserves to be accepted for the districts of Uttarkashi, Chamoli, Rudraprayag, Tehri, Pauri Garhwal, Pithoragarh, Champawat, Bageshwar, Almora. Insofar as district Nanital is concerned, it deserves to be extended only to four tehsils – Nanital, Dhari, Kosya Kutauli and Betalghat, and with respect to district Dehradun, it deserves to be extended only to three tehsils - Chakrata, Kalsi and Tiuni. 3. It is clarified, that the concession is not extended to districts Haridwar and Udhamsingh Nagar.” In view of the order which has subsequently been passed on 4 August 2017 in the case of the State of Uttarakhand, the MAs/IAs filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh seek parity.

pp. 672–673, margin E

3

Before we can consider the request which has been made on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, it is necessary that the court should be apprised of those districts of the State which can be considered to be hilly areas or hilly districts. Such a course of action was followed by the court in the case of the State of Uttarakhand before, the order dated 4 August 2017 was passed.

p. 673, margin B

4

We accordingly direct that an affidavit setting out the above particulars be filed within a period of four weeks from today. List thereafter.

p. 673, margin C