Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

i) Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vasant Pandurang Narwade Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2002 (1) Mh.LR. 812 , in paragraph no. 20 has observed as under :-

6 wp1937j-19.odt

20. The petitioner alongwith other documents, had also submitted a copy of the representation dated 26.05.2000 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra by the Chief Promoter of Marathwada Kunbi Maratha Vikas Mahamandal at Dhamangaon, Tq. Jalkot, Dist. Latur. The prayer in this representation was that all the persons belonging to Maratha caste in the Marathwada region should be recognized as Kunbi and they should be issued the caste certificate as belonging to Kunbi caste. This representation has referred to the same gazetteers as relied upon by the petitioner before the scrutiny committee and attempted to suggest that there was no distinction between Marathas and Kunbis and Maratha caste is part and parcel of Kunbi caste. In short, the petitioner's plea was also on the same lines as is made out in the representation submitted to the Chief Minister and though there were certificates in respect of himself, his father and grant father, that all of them belonged to Maratha caste, he should be declared as belonging to Kunbi caste. The Committee rightly held that such a proposition could not be accepted. The committee's jurisdiction was limited to an enquiry whether the petitioner belongs to the Kunbi caste and nothing beyond the same. Even the order passed by the Apex Court remanding the matter for fresh adjudication also goes to show that the committee was required to verify the petitioner's caste claim of belonging to Kunbi caste by giving him a fresh opportunity of submitting evidence - documentary and oral. If the petitioner claims that there is no difference between Maratha and Kunbi caste and Maratha caste is part and parcel of Kunbi caste or a synonym of the same, his remedy is before the State Government and it is not within the powers of the scrutiny committee to adjudicate upon the same. This view is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind (supra). While interpreting the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held that it was not at all permissible to hold 7 wp1937j-19.odt any enquiry or let in any evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community was included in the general name even though it was not specifically mentioned in the concerned Entry in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and the Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It was not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of, or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it. A notification issued under Clause (1) of Article 342, specifying Scheduled Tribes can be amended only by law to be made by the Parliament. In other words, any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe can be included or excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued under Clause (1) of Article 342 only by the Parliament by law and by no other authority and it was not open to State Governments or courts or Tribunals or any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued under Clause (1) of Article 342.