STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MANA ADIM JAMAT MANDAL
LAWS(SC)-2006-3-50
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 08,2006

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
VERSUS
MANA ADIM JAMAT MANDAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DADAJI ALIAS DINA V. SUKHDEOBABU AND ORS. [OVERRULED]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. V. RAJ RANI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MILIND KATWARE [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HARI KRISHAN KHOSLA [REFERRED TO]
RAO NARAIN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
C N RUDRAMURTHY VS. K BARKATHULLA KHAN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VS. KESHAO VISHWANATH SONONE AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2020-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHAKAR S/O RAJARAM TUMRAM VS. COMMITTEE FOR SCRUTINY AND VERIFICATION OF TRIBE CLAIMS AMRAVATI [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-353] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ANAS MOHAMMAD SALIM VS. DISTRICT CASTE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, AMRAVATI [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-124] [REFERRED TO]
REGU MAHESWARA RAO VS. VYRICHERLA KISHORE CHANDRA SURAYANARAYANA DEO [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-119] [REFERRED TO]
SHUBHAM DIWAKAR DHOK VS. SCHEDULED TRIBE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
SUVARNA MADHUKARSHELWATKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR VIBHAGIYA PRIKSHYAN U P VS. DINESH KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
POOJAKAUR SHAMSING LABANA VS. DISTRICT CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE [LAWS(BOM)-2023-8-503] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI BHASKAR S/O DAULATRAO GHARAT VS. THE SCHEDULED TRIBE CASTE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-188] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYKUMAR MADHUKAR INGLE VS. CASTE SCRUTINY COMMITEE [LAWS(BOM)-2007-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL BHARTIYA UPBHOKTA CONGRESS BHOPAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2009-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
SEEMA MUKUNDA NANNAWARE VS. SCHEDULE TRIBE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE [LAWS(BOM)-2019-11-184] [REFERRED TO]
SEEMA MUKUNDA NANNAWARE VS. SCHEDULE TRIBE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE [LAWS(BOM)-2019-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
KAMTA PRASAD VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2008-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
PARVI ASHISH CHAKRAVARTI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYA PRAMOD GAJBE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-12-150] [REFERRED TO]
SHUBHAM SHARAD GADAMADE VS. SCHEDULED TRIBECERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, NAGPUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-137] [REFERRED TO]
SEBATI BEHERA VS. SUBASI NAYAK [LAWS(ORI)-2006-7-27] [REFERRED]
SHILPA VISHNU THAKUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
GHODAWAT PACKERS LLP VS. UNION OF INDIA, [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-1508] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY CHOUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2009-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
GODFREY PHILIPS INDIA LTD. VS. STATE OF M.P.(AND OTHER CASES). [LAWS(MPH)-2008-5-61] [REFERRED TO]
BHIMRAO DAULAT JIVTODE VS. COMMITEE FOR SCRUTINY AND VERIFICATION OF TRIBES CLAIMS [LAWS(BOM)-2006-8-133] [REFERRED TO]
KU. RAJASHRI D/O RAMESHRAO GAJBE VS. THE SCHEDULED TRIBE CERTIFICATE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-131] [REFERRED TO]
AJANTA MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-1431] [REFERRED TO]
GITESH S/O NARENDRA GHORMARE VS. THE SCHEDULED TRIBE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE [LAWS(BOM)-2018-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
MAROTI VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR & MEMBER-SECRETARY [LAWS(BOM)-2023-9-249] [REFERRED TO]
UNICORN INDUSTRIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2019-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
SHUBHAM SHARAD GADMADE VS. SCHEDULED TRIBE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE [LAWS(BOM)-2018-6-120] [REFERRED TO]
DR.DAYARAM S/O. BHAGWANJI NARNAWRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-60] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESHWAR S/O VITTHALRAO DHOK VS. THE DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL [LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-105] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT KHEMRAJ EKUDE NAGPUR VS. COMMITTEE FOR SCRUTINY [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR BALKRISHNA PINJARKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-369] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN SITARAM CHANDANBATWE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-352] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGYASHREE D/O VINOD KELKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-370] [REFERRED TO]
ADIM GOWARI SAMAJ VIKAS MANDAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR NAYAK VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
AJAMEERA HARI NAIK VS. SUMAN RATHOD [LAWS(APH)-2010-11-27] [REFERRED]
MULCHAND AND ORS. VS. RAMBHAU AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-396] [REFERRED TO]
PAYAL D/O SUDHAKAR JAMBHULE VS. THE SCHEDULED TRIBE CASTE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-273] [REFERRED TO]
RAJARAM SAKHWAR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-8-129] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAVI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR [LAWS(SC)-2006-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
PRANJALI GIRDHARI BAISANI VS. DISTRICT CASTE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-179] [REFERRED TO]
ASHU D/O DATTUJI SHRIRAME VS. THE SCHEDULED TRIBE CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-160] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

H.K.SEMA, J. - (1.)WHAT appears to be a perpetual controversy with regard to Scheduled Tribe status has again engaged the attention of this Court for a considerable time. Two questions are raised before us:
a. Whether the 'Mana' community in the State of Maharashtra is a Sub-Tribe of "Gond" and is a Scheduled Tribe or not?

b. Whether a two Judge Bench decision of this Court in Dina v. Narayan Singh (for the sake of brevity 'Dina I') and the decision rendered by another two Judge Bench of this Court in Dadaji alias Dina v. Sukhdeobabu and Ors. (for the sake of brevity 'Dina II') are over-ruled by a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind Katware?

(2.)THE questions raised before us being the questions of law, it is not necessary for us to recite the entire facts.
Clause 25 of the Article 366 of the Constitution of India defines "Scheduled Tribes" as under: "Scheduled Tribes" means such tribes or tribal communities as parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution;"

Article 342 of the Constitution of India deals with Scheduled Tribes. It says:

"342. Scheduled Tribes. (1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be. (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification."

(3.)THE President by public notification issued the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, in exercise of the powe; s conferred by clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution. By clause 2 of that Order it was provided that the tribes or tribal communities, or parts of it, or groups, within tribes or tribal communities, specified in Parts I to XII of the Schedule to the Order shall, in relation to the States to which those parts respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes so far as regards members thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them respectively in those Parts of that Schedule. THE Order is followed by a Schedule constituting of twelve Parts. Part VII-A of the Schedule as amended by Act II of 1960 relates to Maharashtra. By item 5 it is specified that in (1) Melghattehsil of Amravati District (2) Godchiroli and Sironcha tehsils of the Chanda district (3) Kalapur, Wani and Yeotmal tehsils of the Yeotmal district 32 tribes or tribal communities shall be deemed Scheduled Tribes. Entry 12 as originally set out in the Order promulgated by the President of India reads: "Gond" including Media, ("Maria" and Mudia (Murai)"). By the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 63 of 1956, Entry 12 was substituted by:
"12. Gond, including Arakh or Arrakh, Agaria, Asur, Badi, Maria or Bada Maria, Bhatola, Bhimma, Bhuta, Koliabhuta or Koilabhuti, Bhar, Bisonborn Maria, Chota Maria, Danoami Maria, Dharu or Dhurwa Dhoba, Dhulia, Dorla Gaiki, Gatta or Gatti, Gaita, Gond Gowari, Hill Maria, Kandra, Kalanga, Khatola, Koitar, Koya, Kirwar or Khirwara, Kucha Maria, Kuchaki Maria, Media (Maria), Mana, Mannower, Mohya or Mogia or Monghya, Mudia (Muria), Nagarchi, Nagwanshi, Ojha, Raj, Sonjhari Jhareka, Thantia or Thotye, Wade Maria or Vade Maria"

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 was passed by the Parliament. The Preamble of the Act states:

"An Act to provide for the inclusion in, and the exclusion from, the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, of certain castes and tribes, for the re-adjustment of representation of parliamentary and assembly constituencies in so far as such re-adjustment is necessitated by such inclusion of exclusion and for matters connected therewith."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.