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

1993 Supreme(Pat) 517

PATNA HIGH COURT
N.S.Rao and G.C.Bharuka JJ.
Phudnath Kisan Nagesia
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3027 of 1993 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 22, 1993

The determination of whether a particular tribe is a Scheduled Tribe is within the exclusive power of the President.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - SCHEDULED TRIBES - NAGESIA TRIBE - WHETHER SCHEDULED TRIBE - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WHETHER ISSUABLE - CONSTITUTION (SCHEDULED TRIBES) ORDER, 1950.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a member of the Nagesia tribe, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Deputy Commissioner to treat the Nagesia tribe as a Scheduled Tribe and grant them the privileges thereof. The petitioner relied on various circumstances and documents, including a government letter extending educational facilities to the Nagesia tribe, an order restoring land to a member of the Nagesia tribe under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, and a letter from the Additional Collector asking an Anchal Adhikari to issue a caste certificate to a member of the Nagesia tribe.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that it could not adjudicate the issue of whether the Nagesia tribe was a Scheduled Tribe because such an inquiry was not within the writ jurisdiction of the court. The court noted that the Nagesia tribe was not included in the schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and that the determination of whether a particular tribe was a Scheduled Tribe was within the exclusive power of the President.

Issues: 1. Whether the Nagesia tribe is a Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950? 2. Whether the court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Deputy Commissioner to treat the Nagesia tribe as a Scheduled Tribe?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Nagesia tribe was not included in the schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and that the determination of whether a particular tribe was a Scheduled Tribe was within the exclusive power of the President. 2. The court held that it could not adjudicate the issue of whether the Nagesia tribe was a Scheduled Tribe because such an inquiry was not within the writ jurisdiction of the court.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition.

Judgment

G. C. Bharuka, J.

1. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent deputy Commissioner, Gumla, to treat the members of Nagesia tribe as falling in the category of Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of the constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950 (hereinafter the Order only)and to grant them all the privileges to which the members of the Scheduled tribe are entitled to.

2. The petitioner claims to be a member of Nagesia tribe of the district of Gumla. His grievance is that though in the adjoining districts of Lohardaga and Palamau, Nagesia is treated as scheduled tribe but the said privilege has been denied to the petitioner and to the other members of his tribe by the respondent Deputy Commissioner on the plea that in the schedule to the Order Nagesia has not been included as one of the tribes.

3. Mr. D. N. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of the claim made in this writ petition, has drawn our attention to various circumstances and documents, which, according to him are sufficient for accepting the Nagesia to be one of the Scheduled Tribes for all constitutional purposes. He has also placed reliance on a decision of the supreme Court in the case of Bhaiya Ram Minda V/s. Anirudh Patar and others, AIR 1971 SC 2533 and on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Nag and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1987 BLT (Rep) 222.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent deputy Commissioner. Learned counsel appearing for the State by referring to the statements made in the counter-affidavit as also by referring to the letter dated 2-12-1991 (Annexure 6) filed by the petitioner, has submitted that admittedly Nagesia tribe does not find place in the schedule to the Order referred to above and, as such, the stand of the Deputy commissioner that the members of this tribe cannot claim the relief sought for in this writ application is unassailable. According to him unless an authoritative decision as permissible in law is taken by the Government, the deputy Commissioner of his own cannot grant any benefit to the members of Nagesia tribe by treating the said tribe to be one of the scheduled tribe.

5. Mr. Sinha has referred to a Government letter dated 15-1-1986 (Annexure 1) which relates to extension of educational facilities in various tribal and non-tribal areas which were dominated by various tribes named therein including Nagesia. This Government communication per se is of no help in ascertaining as to whether Nagesia can be treated to be scheduled tribe or not because for being a scheduled tribe a class of persons should not only be aboriginal but the tribe by which they are known should also find place in the schedule to the Order. Learned counsel has further referred to an order dated 6-7-1988 which is an order passed in a case for restoration of land under Sec.71-A of the C. N. T Act. This order shows that land of one Bihari Nagesia was restored in his favour pursuant to the statutory provisions contained under the aforesaid provisions of c. N T. Act This order has been passed pursuant to the statutory provisions as contained under the special Act and is of no consequence for determination of the issue involved The powers under Sec.71-A of the said Act are not exercised because a person claiming any right there under is a member of the scheduled tribe within the meaning of the Order but is based on the statutory contemplation referrable to the tribes referred to therein. Our attention has also been drawn to a letter dated 7-1-1992 (Annexure 5) written by the Additional Collector, Gumla, to the Anchal adhikari, Raidih, asking the latter that since in Ranchi Gazetteer Kisan and Nagesia have been described as to be belonging to the same caste group, therefore, he should issue caste certificate in favour of one Ramesh ham Nagesia after necessary verification In my opinion, this










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 Back to top