SRISHKUMARCHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GAUHATI)
SRISH KUMAR CHOUDHURY
STATE OF TRFPURA
Cited Judgements :-
REPRESENTATIVE OF LIOS KAKCHING VS. STATE OF MANIPUR
T A RONGMEI VS. STATE OF NAGALAND
GAUTAM KR DEB BARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA
POORANMASI DEHATI VS. SHAMBHU CHAUDHARY
KANDRATI SUBBOJI VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MALLELA VENKATA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ANDHRA PRADESH SCHEDULED TRIBES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. ADITYA PRATAP BHANJ DEV
NIMMAKA JAYA RAJU VS. SATRUCHARLA VIJAYA RAMA RAJU
NIMMAKA JAYA RAJU VS. SATRUCHARLA VIJAYA RAMA RAJU
RADHABALLABH CHOUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA
MOHANDAS SHIVARAY SHIROOR VS. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT KARWARAND
PANDURANG RANGNATH CHAVAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
BABURAO RAJARAM SHINDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
NAGO LAKHAJI NANNAWARE VS. KANHU UNDRU MADAVI
S SWVIGARADOSS VS. ZONAL MANAGER F C I
NITYANANDSHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MILIND
[REFERRED AIR 1990 SC 991:1990 LAB 1C 707 :]
SAMASTA GUJARAT RAJYA MOCHI SAMAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA
SONAM DOLMA VS. PHUNCHOG ANGRUP
KERALA PATTIKA JATHI SAMREKSHANA SAMITHY VS. STATE OF KERALA
VALSAMMA PAUL VS. RANI GEORGE
K S VIJAYALAKSHMI VS. TAHSILDAR PALAKKAD
M.C.VALSALA VS. STATE OF KERALA
MANA ADIM JAMAT MANDAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
RAVIPRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
NANDA YADAVRAO SHANKHPALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
MAYA DEVI DAGALA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
SUSHRIYA SACHDEVA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
K.P.MANU VS. CHAIRMAN
SHRI MIHIR SINGHA ROY, S/O. SUDHIR CH. SINGHA ROY, MILAN CHAKRA, BADHARGHAT, P.S. WEST AGARTALA, DISTRICT - WEST TRIPURA VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE LAW SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA AND ORS.
NISHIKANT VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
HARPREET KAUR VS. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND ORS
JANAK LAL BASUMATARY VS. NABA KUMAR SARANIA (HIRA)
P AFSAANA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA
NIKKU RAM VS. SECRETARY SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT
SHIPRA DEBBARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA
SUDIP DEBBARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA
ANANDRA VITHOBA ADSUL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
SABITA DEBBARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA
Click here to view full judgement.
Ranganath Misra, J. -
(1.)This appeal by special leave calls in question the judgment of the Guwahati High Court dated March 19, 1985, dismissing the appellant's writ petition. The appellant is a resident of Tripura State. In his application in a representative capacity before the High Court he maintained that he belonged to the Laskar community which had always been treated in the erstwhile State of Tripura as a scheduled tribe and on that basis in the State records was included in the Deshi Tripura community long before integration of the Ruler's State of Tripura with the Union of India. Members of the Laskar community freely enjoyed all the benefits available to members of the scheduled tribes until in 1976 the State Government decided to treat members of that community as not belonging to the scheduled tribes and issued instructions to the State authorities to implement the Government decision. That led to the filing of the petition before the High Court. In the writ petition appellant prayed for appropriate directions to continue to treat the appellant and members of his community as belonging to the scheduled tribes and for a direction to the State Government to extend all the benefits admissibit to members of the scheduled tribes to members of - the Laskar community. Before the High Court the respondents disputed the claim and maintained that the Laskar community was never included in the Scheduled Tribes Order and as such there was no question of exclusion from the list. A historical study of the claim would show that in the past Tripura/ Tripuri/Tippera which have been included in the Presidential Notification never included the Laskar community. Tripuras were a Tibeto-Burman race akin to the Shah tribe and Tipperas were divided into four groups, namely (i) Puran or Original Tipperas (ii) Jamatias (iii) Noatias or Nutan Tripuras, and (iv) Riangs. Respondents relied upon Government records and official publications in support of the aforesaid stand.
(2.)Before the High Court two circulars.of the erstwhile State of Tripura, one being of December 1930, and the other of Februray, 1941,census report of the ex-State of Tripura were produced in support of the claim advanced by the appellant. Several authorities of this Court were relied upon for finding out the scope of enquiry in a claim of this type and ultimately by the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the writ petition but on the basis of a statement made by the Advocate-General appearing for the State, it recorded:
"We keep on record the statement made by the learned Advocate-General, Tripura, on instruction that as a result of the impugned Memorandum No. 10887-19077/TW/6-4-(LD) dated 28-4-1979 the certificates already issued would be treated as infructuous prospectively and not retrospectively and those who have already enjoyed the benefits by virtue of such scheduled tribe certificates they shall not be deprived of the benefits they have already enjoyed and the Memorandum shall be effective from its date prospectively insofar as the future benefits are concerned."
(3.)This appeal had come up for final hearing earlier and by a brief judgment, a two-Judge Bench recorded the following order:
"The record before us shows that the people of the Laskar community have been treated as members of the scheduled tribes and there have been some letters from the Government of India to the State Government in support of that position, it is, however, a fact that there has been no clear inclusion of the community in an appropriate Presidential Order. The appellant has maintained that even in the absence of such a clear specification in a Presidential Order, as a sub-group under one of the notified categories, the appellant's community has been enjoying the privileges. We have been told by the learned counsel for the Union of India that the representation made by the appellant and members of his community for inclusion in the Presidential Order under Article 342 of the Constitution is being looked into and is being placed before the Parliamentary Committee in accordance with the prescribed procedure for a review of the position. He has assured us that the Government of India will take steps to finalise the matter at an early date and may in compliance with the procedure as prescribed, take final decision. In case the community is not included in the Presidential Order, it would be open to the appellant to take such action as may be available in law."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.