Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)Article 341 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970
Paragraph 14 goes on to set out the substance of the
decision in Dina case and paragraph 15 sets out the
substance of the decision in Bhaiya Ram case. In paragraph
16 it is said,: "These authorities clearly indicate,
therefore, that the entries in the Presidential Order have
to be taken as final and the scope of enquiry and
admissibility of evidence is confined within the limitations
indicated. It is, however, not open to the court to make
any addition or subtraction from the Presidential Order."
State Of Maharashtra vs Abhay And Ors. on 19 October, 1984
Fifthly, this Court in State of
Maharashtra vs. Abhay and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 328)
specifically had kept open the larger question whether
'Halba-Koshti' is Halba. The High Court in the impugned
judgment refers to this decision but only states that the
said judgment shall govern the petitioner only. Sixthly,
all the said decisions were not directly on the point
relating to Scheduled Tribes Order issued under Article 342
of the Constitution; some of the cases arose out of civil
disputes involving adoption. Seventhly, even the State
Government was not consistent in its stand touching the
issue whether 'Halba-Koshtis' were 'Halba'/'Halbis' to
consider them as Scheduled Tribes. As early as on 20.7.1962
itself a circular was issued to the effect that
'Halba-Koshtis' were not Scheduled Tribes. Further a look
at the various circulars / resolutions/instructions/orders
referred to in paragraphs 20 to 22 of the impugned judgment,
makes it clear that the controversy was not settled. Hence
it cannot be said that the view 'Halba-Koshti' was
'Halba'/'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe was holding the field for
long time.
B. Basavalingappa vs D. Munichinnappa on 23 September, 1964
The Government of India on 21.4.1969 wrote to the State
Government that in view of Basavalingappa's case (supra)
'Halba-Koshti' community could be treated as Scheduled Tribe
only if it is added to the list as a sub-tribe in the
Scheduled Tribes Order and not otherwise. Thereafter few
more circulars were issued by the State Government between
24.10.1969 and 6.11.1974 to recognize 'Halba-Koshtis' as
'Halbas' and indicated as to who were the authorities
competent to issue certificates and the guidelines were
given for enquiry. There was again departure in the policy
of the State Government by writing a confidential letter No.
CBC- 1076/1314/Desk-V dated 18.1.1977. Government informed
the District Magistrate, Nagpur, that 'Halba-Koshtis' should
not be issued 'Halba' Caste Certificate. Thereafter, few
more circulars, referred to in paragraph 22 of the judgment,
were issued. It may not be necessary to refer to those
again except to the circular dated 31.7.1981 bearing No.
CBC-1481/(703)/D.V. by which the Government directed that
until further orders insofar as 'Halbas' are concerned, the
school leaving certificate should be accepted as valid for
the purpose of the caste. Vide Resolution dated 23.1.1985 a
new Scrutiny Committee was appointed for verification of
castes certificates of Scheduled Tribes. The High Court had
observed in paragraph 23 of the judgment that several
circulars issued earlier were withdrawn but the said
circular dated 31.7.1981 was not withdrawn. For the first
time on 8.3.1985 the Scrutiny Committee was authorized to
hold enquiry if there was any reason to believe that the
certificate was manipulated or fabricated or had been
obtained by producing insufficient evidence. Referring to
these circulars/resolutions the High Court took the view
that the caste certificate issued to the respondent no. 1
could be considered as valid and upto 8.3.1985 the enquiry
was governed by circular dated 31.7.1981. The High Court
dealing with the stand of the State Government on the issue
of 'Halba-Koshti', from time to time, and also referring to
circulars/ resolutions/instructions held in favour of the
respondent no. 1 on the ground that the appellant was bound
by its own circulars/orders. No doubt, it is true, the
stand of the appellant as to the controversy relating to
'Halba-Koshti' has been varying from time to time but in the
view we have taken on question no. 1, the circulars
/resolutions /instructions issued by the State Government
from time to time, some time contrary to the instructions
issued by the Central Government, are of no consequence.
They could be simply ignored as the State Government had
neither authority nor competency to amend or alter the
Scheduled Tribes Order. It appears taking note of false and
frivolous claims being made by persons not entitled to claim
such status, the Government of India addressed letters and
issued instructions between the period from 21.4.1969 to
1982 to impress that there should be strict enquiry before
issuance of caste certificates to persons claiming Scheduled
Caste / Scheduled Tribe status; strict scrutiny into the
caste of the parent should be effected as a check-point.
The State Government issued Resolution dated 29.10.1980 in
consonance with the instructions given by the Central
Government laying down the guidelines on which the enquiry
should be held before issue of Caste Certificate. Another
Resolution dated 24.2.1981 was also issued for appointing a
scrutiny committee to verify whether the Caste Certificate
has been issued to person who is really entitled to it in
view of the complaints of misuse of reservational benefits
on a large scale. These Resolutions were operative as they
had not been repealed.
Nityanand Sharma & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 February, 1996
In Nityanand Sharma & Another vs. State of Bihar and
Others the view expressed is that it is for the Parliament
to amend the law and the Schedule to include or exclude from
the Schedule a tribe or tribal community or part of or group
within a tribe or tribal community in the State, District or
Region and its declaration is conclusive. The court has no
power to declare synonymous as equal to the tribes specified
in the Order or include in or substitute any caste / tribe
etc.
In the impugned judgment, the High Court refers to the
two Constitution Bench judgments in Basavalingappa and
Bhaiyalal and also notes statement made in the said
decisions that "It may be accepted that it not open to make
any modification in the Order by producing evidence to show
(for example) that though caste A alone is mentioned in the
Order, caste B is also a part of caste A and, therefore,
must be deemed to be included in caste A. It may also be
accepted that wherever one caste has another name it has
been mentioned in brackets after it in the Order (See Aray
(Mala), Dakkal (Dokkalwar) etc). Therefore, generally
speaking it would not be open to any person to lead evidence
to establish that caste B (in the example quoted above) is
part of caste A notified in the Order. Ordinarily,
therefore, it would not have been open in the present case
to give evidence that the Voddar Caste was the same as the
Bhovi Caste specified in the order for Voddar Caste is not
mentioned in brackets after the Bhovi Caste in the Order."
K. Adikanda Patra And Ors. vs Gandua And Ors. on 25 September, 1982
"However, that may be, the question not being open to
agitation by evidence and being one the determination of
which lies within the exclusive power of the President, it
is not for us to examine it and come to a conclusion that if
a person was in fact a Mochi, he could still claim to belong
to the Scheduled Caste of Chamars and be allowed to contest
an election on that basis." The High Court again, in
paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment, observed that, "it is
quite clear that the list once prepared by the President can
be amended only by the Parliament and by none else". Having
said so, the High Court went wrong in relying on Division
Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Bhaiya Ram
Munda and Dina and the Full Bench decision of Orissa High
Court in K.Adikanada Patra vs. Gandua (AIR 1983 Orissa 89),
to take a contrary view in saying that there was no legal
bar in holding enquiry as to whether 'Halba-Koshti' is a
part and parcel or sub division of 'Halba'/'Halbi' or not.
We have no hesitation in saying that the High Court
committed a serious error in not following the
aforementioned two Constitution Bench judgments of this
Court and preferring to follow Division Bench judgments of
this Court and the Full Bench judgment of Orissa High Court
which did not lay down the law correctly on the question.
Abhay Shrawanji Parate vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 27 January, 1984
The High Court to support its view that 'Halba-Koshti'
is included in 'Halba' or 'Halbi' Tribe relied on the
following decisions of High Courts - (1) Sonabai vs.
Lakhmibai (1956 NLJ 725) (decided by the Division Bench of
erstwhile Nagpur High Court); (2) Madhukar Dekate vs. Dean
of the Medical College, Nagpur (Letter Patent Appeal No.
157/1955, decided on 4th August, 1957 by a Division Bench of
Madhya Pradesh High Court; (3) Sunit Nana Umredkar vs. Dr.
V.G. Ranade (Writ Petition No. 2404 of 1980, decided on
24th September, 1980 by a Division Bench of Bombay High
Court); (4) Prabodh Parhate vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 1450 of 1981 decided
on 21st January, 1982 by Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh
High Court; (5) Abhay Parate vs. State of Maharashtra,
(1984 Mah.
Maktul vs Mst. Manbhari & Others on 23 May, 1958
(From Corpus Juris Secondum) The decisions relied on
by the High Court to apply the doctrine of stare decisis,
firstly, were not holding the field for long time.
Secondly, they are evidently contrary to the constitutional
provisions. Thirdly, all the decisions rendered by the High
Courts after 1965 were not consistent with the law laid down
by this Court. Fourthly, if the view of the High Court is
accepted, it will lead to absurd, unjust and ex-facie
illegal results running contrary to Articles 341 and 342 of
the Constitution.
Srish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990
There is, therefore, no doubt that the Court in Srish Kumar
Choudhury case accepted and followed, as it was bound to do,
the Constitution Bench judgments and not the two Judge
judgments in the Dina and Bhiya Ram Munda cases."