SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 965

UDAY UMESH LALIT, AJAY RASTOGI
Chandrabhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


ORDER :

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 06.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.2153 of 2016.

2. The basic issue that arose in the instant proceedings was whether the appellant was right in his submission that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe, named, “Halba”.

3. After going through the record, the Caste Scrutiny Committee negated the submission and gave a positive finding that the claim so propounded by the appellant was completely unsustainable and that he did not belong to the Schedule Tribe, named, “Halba”.

4. It must be stated that a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Others, (2001) 1 SCC 4, was called upon to decide whether “Halba-Koshtis” from the State of Maharashtra could be treated as “Halba/Halbi”.

5. The Constitution Bench concluded:

    “36. In the light of what is stated above, the following positions emerge:

    1. It is not at all permissible to hold any inquiry 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 is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the en

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top