Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.45 seconds)
Gitesh S/O Narendra Ghormare vs The Scheduled Tribe Cert. Scrutiny ... on 2 July, 2018 cites

Mana Adim Jamat Mandal vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 11 June, 2003

In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mana Adim Jamat Mandal's case, cited supra, the community 'Mana' included in the cluster of tribes led by 'Gond' in entry No.18, is declared to be an independent tribe, which is neither a sub-tribe of 'Gond' nor a sub-tribe of 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', etc. ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:52:40 ::: 30 wp7000.17.odt The Government Resolutions have already been set aside. Hence, the affinity tests prescribed in all such Government Resolutions have lost their significance and are no longer available to the Committee to reject the claim.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 67 - A P Shah - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Milind & Ors on 28 November, 2000

In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Milind's case, any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe can be excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued under Clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India only by the Parliament by law and by no other authority. To hold that 'Mana' in Entry No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order does not include 'Kshtriya Badwaik Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', etc., would amounting to permitting evidence to be let in to exclude certain 'Mana' communities from the recognized Scheduled Tribe. Such tinkering with the Presidential Order is not permissible. Once it is established that 'Mana' is a tribe or even a sub-tribe, it is not permissible to say that it is not a recognized Scheduled Tribe in Entry No.18 of the Order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 616 - S V Patil - Full Document

Anand vs Committee For S.&V. Of Tribe Claims &Ors on 8 November, 2011

27. We have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner having conclusively established his claim for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe' on the basis of the documents having probative value, there was no occasion for the Scrutiny Committee, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Anand's case, cited supra, to raise a doubt and invoke the affinity test to hold that the petitioner has failed to establish his claim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 341 - D K Jain - Full Document

Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. Commissioner on 2 September, 1994

29. The decision of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, lays down in guideline No.5, the procedure for collecting the traits, characteristics, customs, rituals, etc., prevailing in a particular community and enquiry is required to be conducted and the statements of the persons having knowledge of social status, considered to be the genuine tribals are required to be recorded. An opportunity is also required to be given to the claimants to cross-examine such persons deposing the affinity test. It is only upon such a test laid down or prescribed, the affinity test can be invoked as a corroborative test and it cannot be used as a substantive evidence to reject the claim, which is established conclusively on the basis of the documents produced on record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 761 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1