Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
DADAJI ALIAS DINA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SUKHDEOBABU & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/11/1979
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
TULZAPURKAR, V.D.
CITATION:
1980 AIR 150 1980 SCR (1)1135
1980 SCC (1) 621
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1982 SC 149 (250)
ACT:
Representation of People Act 1951-Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 read as "Gond including"
certain tribes-Amendment made in 1976 omitted "including"
and added "Mana" as a tribe having affinity with "Gonds"-
Omission of "including" if means any "Mana" community not
having affinity with "Gonds"-Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana"
community, if a Scheduled Tribe.
HEADNOTE:
Entry 12 of Part IX of the Schedule to the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 prior to its amendment in 1956
read as "Gond including Media (Maria) and Mudia, (Muria)".
By the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act
63 of 1956 the said Entry was substituted by Entry 12 in
Paragraph 5 of Part VII-A of the Schedule to the Order. It
read as "12 Gond, including: Arakh or Arrah...Mana...."
"Mana" was the 30th community amongst the communities
included in that Entry. In 1976 the entire Schedule to the
order as it stood prior to the amendment was substituted by
a new Schedule. Entry 18 of Part IX of the new Schedule
corresponding to Entry 12, prior to the amendment, showed
’Mana’ community as one of the communities included in the
group of communities headed by "Gond" community.
In the election to the State Assembly held in February,
1978 the appellant was declared successful from a
constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribes. In his election
petition impugning the appellant’s election respondent no. 1
who was the unsuccessful candidate challenged the election
on the ground that the appellant did not belong to any of
the Scheduled Tribes specified in Part IX of the Schedule to
the 1950 Order as it stood at the time of the election and
was therefore not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat
reserved for the Scheduled Tribes.
The High Court set aside the appellant’s election.
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of
the appellant that while the word "including" in Entry 12 of
the 1950 Order as it stood after its amendment in 1956
showed that the communities referred to therein were those
having affinity with the Gond Tribe and its omission in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
Entry 18 as amended in 1976 showed that the group of
communities mentioned in this Entry, need not necessarily be
those having mutual affinity amongst them so that a person
belonging to any "Mana" community should be treated as a
person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe even though it had no
affinity with the "Gond" tribe.
Dismissing the appeal
^
HELD: 1. The High Court was right in setting aside the
appellant’s election on the ground that he did not belong to
a Schedule Tribe. [1147 B]
1136
2. (a) Even when the Order, before its amendment in
1976 used the term "including", this Court giving a
restricted meaning to "Mana", held that only ’Mana’
community which had affinity with the ’Gond’ community could
be considered as a Scheduled Tribe and that ’Kshatriya
Bidwaik Mana’ community to which the appellant belonged
could not be treated as a Scheduled Tribe. [1143F-G]
(b) A reading of Part IX of the Schedule to the Order
shows that certain communities had been grouped together
under a single Entry in the light of Article 342 of the
Constitution which requires part of or groups within a
tribal community also to be specified in the Order.
Therefore the communities mentioned against any specific
Entry are those which have mutual affinity amongst them.
[1144C-E]
(c) Merely because a new Schedule had been substituted
for the old one it cannot be said that Parliament had
intended to treat persons belonging to "Kshatriya Bidwaik
Mana" community also as a Scheduled Tribe. Where there are
two communities with the same name one having affinity with
a tribe and the other not having anything to do with it and
both are treated as Scheduled Tribes, the community which
has affinity with another tribe is shown along with it in
the same group against a single Entry and the other is shown
against a different Entry. Therefore the Mana community
included in Entry 18 can only be that which has affinity
with ’Gonds’ and any other community which also bears the
name ’Mana’ but does not have any such affinity cannot be
deemed to fall within the scope of ’Mana’ in Entry 18.
[1144H, 1145C-D]
3. The term "including" is sometimes used in a
definition to give an extended meaning to the word defined.
Sometimes it is used as a synonym for "means" and not as a
word of extension but limitation. [1143C-D]
Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps, [1899] A.C. 99 at
pp. 105-106, South Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufacturers
Association & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., [1977] 1
S.C.R. 878, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2229 of
1978.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12-10-1978 of the
Bombay High Court in Election Petition No. 2/78.
N.N. Keshwani and Ramesh N. Keshwani for the Appellant.
A.K. Ganguli for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J.-This appeal is filed under section
116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No.
43 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) against
the judgment of the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
Election Petition No. 2 of 1978 by which the election of the
appellant to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the
Armori Constituency (No. 151) in Chandrapur District at the
general election held in February, 1978 was set aside.
1137
The Armori Constituency was reserved for Scheduled Tribes.
The appellant and respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were the
candidates at the election. As the appellant secured the
highest number of votes, he was declared as having been
elected by the Returning Officer. In his nomination paper,
the appellant declared that he belonged to ’Mana’ community.
Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 declared themselves as belonging
to ’Pradhan’ community and respondent No. 3 claimed that he
belonged to ’Raj Gond’ community. After the result of the
election was declared, respondent No. 1 who had secured the
next highest number of votes at the election filed an
election petition under section 81 of the Act before the
High Court of Bombay calling in question the election of the
appellant. One of the grounds urged in the petition was that
the appellant did not belong to any of the Scheduled Tribes
specified in Part IX of the Schedule to the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as
’the Order’) as it stood at the time of the election and was
not, therefore, qualified to be chosen to fill the seat
which was reserved for Scheduled Tribes. It was alleged that
the appellant belonged to Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana community
and not to the ’Mana’ community referred to in Entry No. 18
of Part IX of the Schedule to the Order. Respondent No. 1
also claimed that in the event of the appellant’s election
being declared as void, the Court should make a declaration
that he (respondent No. 1) himself had been duly elected.
The High Court upheld the contention of respondent No. 1
that the appellant did not belong to any of the Scheduled
Tribes referred to in Part IX of the Schedule to the Order
and declared his election as void. The other prayer made by
respondent No. 1 that he should be declared as elected was,
however, rejected. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High
Court, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court.
It should be mentioned at this stage that in the
general election held in the year 1967, the appellant was
declared as a successful candidate from the very same
constituency which was a constituency reserved for Scheduled
Tribes at that time also and that on an election petition
being filed against the appellant, the High Court held that
he did not belong to any of the Scheduled Tribes mentioned
in the appropriate part of the Schedule to the Order at that
time and therefore he was not qualified to contest the
election. Accordingly his election was set aside. In the
appeal filed before this Court, the judgment of the High
Court was affirmed vide Dina v. Narayan Singh.(1) In the
course of the decision of this Court, it was held that the
appellant belonged to ’Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana’ community and
not to the ’Mana’ community
1138
referred to in Entry No. 12 of Paragraph 5 of Part VII-A of
the Schedule to the Order as it stood at the time of the
said election for the reasons to which we shall advert
hereafter.
In the election petition out of which this appeal
arises, respondent No. 1 pleaded that the appellant belonged
to ’Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana’ community which was not a tribe
mentioned in the Schedule to the Order and that the
appellant was not a member of the ’Mana’ community referred
to in Entry No. 18 of Part IX of the Schedule to the Order
as it stood at the time of the election in question. It was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
further alleged that the said ’Mana’ community was a sub-
tribe of Gond tribe and it had no relationship with the
’Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana’ community to which the appellant
belonged. The appellant denied the above allegation that
there were two types of Manas viz. (a) ’Mana’ a sub-tribe of
’Gond’ referred to in Entry No. 18 of Part IX of the
Schedule to the Order and (b) ’Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana’
community. He further contended that the ’Mana’ community to
which he belonged had been included in that Entry after the
Schedule to the Order was amended by the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976.
In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is
necessary to make a brief survey of the law bearing on the
question. Article 332 of the Constitution provides that
seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes, except the Scheduled Tribes in the tribal
areas of Assam and Nagaland, in the Legislative Assembly of
every State and that the number of seats for the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes so reserved shall bear, as
nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of
seats in the Assembly as the population of the Scheduled
Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State
or part of the State, as the case may be, in respect of
which seats are so reserved, bears to the total population
of the State. The expression ’Scheduled Tribes’ with which
we are concerned in this case is defined in clause (25) of
Article 366 of the Constitution as such tribes or tribal
communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or
tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 to be
Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of the Constitution.
Article 342(1) of the Constitution provides that the
President may with respect to any State or Union territory
and where it is a 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 the
Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to
that State or Union Territory, as the case may be. It was in
pursuance of this constitutional provision that
1139
the President issued the Order specifying the tribes or
tribal communities which should be deemed to be Scheduled
Tribes in relation to the several parts of India. Article
342(2) of the Constitution confers the power on the
Parliament to modify by law the order issued under Article
342(1) by including in or excluding from the list of
Scheduled Tribes specified therein any tribe or tribal
community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal
community. Section 5(a) of the Act provides that a person
shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the
Legislative Assembly of a State unless, in the case of a
seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes of that State he is a
member of any of those tribes and is an elector for any
Assembly constituency in that State. The area in which the
appellant and respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are residing is
situate within the area known as Gadchiroli and Sironcha
Tahsils of the Chandrapur District of the State of
Maharashtra. Prior to the amendment made in 1956, Entry No.
12 in the relevant part of the Schedule to the Order read as
"Gond including Media (Maria) and Mudia (Muria)". By the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act 63 of
1956, the said Entry No. 12 was substituted by Entry No. 12
in Paragraph (5) of Part VII-A of the Schedule to the Order
which was as follows:-
"12. Gond, including-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
Arakh or Arrakh Kandra
Agaria Kalanga
Asur Khatola
Badi Maria or Koitar
Bada Maria Koya
Bhatola Khirwar or Khirwara
Bhimma Kucha Maria
Bhuta, Koilabhut Kuchaki Maria
or Kollabhuti
Bhar Madia (Maria)
Bisonhorn Maria Mana
Chota Maria Mannewar
Dandami Maria Moghya or Mogia or
Monghya
Dhuru or Dhurwa Mudia (Muria)
Dhoba Nagarchi
Dhulia Nagwanshi
Dorla Ojha
Gaiki Raj
Gatta or Gatti Sonjhari Jhareka
Gaita Thatia or Thotya
Gond Gowari Wade Maria or Vade
Maria."
Hill Maria
The 30th tribe amongst the tribes included within the
broad classification of ’Gond’ tribe is ’Mana’ tribe. As
mentioned earlier, the claim of the appellant that he
belonged to the said tribe in the previous case
1140
was negatived. In August, 1967, a Bill was introduced in the
Lok Sabha proposing to amend the Schedule to the Order. By
that Bill, it was proposed to substitute the Schedule to the
Order as it stood then by a new Schedule. Part VIII of the
new Schedule related to Maharashtra. Entry No. 22 in that
Part read as follows:
___________________________________________________________
Tribe Synonym Sub-tribe
__________________________________________________________
1 2 3
___________________________________________________________
"22. Gond Koitur Arakh Kalanga
Bada Madia Kandra
Bhatola Koya
Chhota Madi Khirwar
Dandami Mad Kucha Madia
Dhulia Kuchaki Madia
Dhuru or Dwa Machalir Madia
Dhoba Mana
Dorla Mannewar
Gaiki Mudia
Gaita Nagarchi
Gatta or Gi Nagwanshi
Naikpod
Ojha
Sonjhari Jharekha
Thatia or Thotia."
_________________________________ __________________________
In the proposed Entry, ’Mana’ community was shown as a
sub-tribe of ’Gond’ tribe. With the concurrence of the Rajya
Sabha, the Bill was referred to a Joint Committee of the
Parliament presided over by Shri Anil K. Chanda. The Report
of the Joint Committee on the Bill was presented to the Lok
Sabha on November 17, 1969. In so far as the amendments
proposed to the Schedule to the Order were concerned, the
Joint Committee inter alia observed at Paragraph 20(ii)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
thus:-
"20(ii). The Committee feel that the proposal to
specify the tribes, the synonyms and the sub-tribes in
three separate columns will not be appropriate. As in
the case of Schedule Castes Orders, the Committee are
of the view that it would be best to follow the wording
of article 342(1) of the Constitution and specify. "The
tribes or tribal communities, or parts of, or groups
within, tribes or tribal communities". Each of the
Scheduled Tribes Orders have been modified accordingly,
and in the lists of Scheduled Tribes the main tribe
name is written first followed by the synonyms and
subtribes in alphabetical order."
1141
The Joint Committee also recommended that the Mana sub-
tribe referred to in the Bill should be excluded from the
Schedule to the Order altogether. Thereafter the matter was
again considered by the Parliament. In the Statement of
Objects and Reasons dated May 12, 1976 attached to the Bill,
it was stated as follows:-
"Under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Orders some communities have been specified as
Scheduled Castes or as Scheduled Tribes only in certain
areas of the State concerned and not in respect of the
whole State. This has been causing difficulties to
member of these communities in the areas where they
have not been so specified. The present Bill generally
seeks to remove these area restrictions. However, in
cases where continuance of such restrictions were
specifically recommended by the Joint Committee on the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders
(Amendment) Bill, 1967, no change is being effected.
The Committee had also recommended exclusion of certain
communities from the lists of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. These exclusions are not being made
at present and such communities are being retained in
the lists with the present area restrictions. Such of
the communities in respect of which the Joint Committee
had recommended exclusion on the ground that they were
not found in a State are, however, being excluded if
there were no returns in respect of these communities
in the censuses of 1961 and 1971............."
Thereafter the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders
(Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 108 of 1976) was passed by
the Parliament and it had come into force before the
election in question was held. By the above Act, the entire
Schedule to the Order as it stood prior to the amendment was
substituted by a new Schedule consisting of XVI parts. Part
IX of the new Schedule relates to the State of Maharashtra.
Entry No. 18 of Part IX of the new Schedule corresponds to
Entry No. 22 of the Bill referred to above and to Entry No.
12 in Paragraph (5) of Part VII-A of the Order as it stood
prior to the amendment. Entry No. 18 of Part IX of the
Schedule to the Order after the amendment reads thus:-
"18. Gond; Rajgond, Arakh, Arrakh, Agaria, Asur
Badi Maria, Bada Maria, Bhatola, Bhimma, Bhuta,
Koilabhuta, Koilabhuti, Bhar, Bisonhorn Maria, Chota
Maria, Dhandami Maria, Dhuru, Dhurwa, Dhoba, Dhulia,
Dorla, Gaiki, Gatta, Gatti, Gaita, Gond Gowari, Hill
Maria, Kandra, Kalanga,
1142
Khatola, Koitar, Koya, Khirwar, Khirwara, Kucha Maria,
Kuchaki Maria, Madia, Maria, Mana, Mannewar, Moghya,
Mogia, Monghnya, Mudia, Muria, Nagarchi, Naikpod,
Nagwanshi, Ojha, Raj, Sonjhari Jhareka, Thatia, Thotya,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
Wade Maria, Vade Maria."
It is seen from the above Entry that ’Mana’ community
is one of the communities included in the group of
communities headed by Gond community. It appears that the
recommendation of the Joint Committee to exclude it from the
Schedule to the Order was not accepted by the Parliament.
If the Schedule to the Order had not undergone any
change, there would not have been any room for argument that
the appellant was a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe
eligible to contest as a candidate at an election to fill a
seat from the reserved constituency as the question was
conducted by the judgment of this Court in Dina’s case
(supra). Mr. M. M. Phadke, learned counsel for the
appellant, however, argued that a comparison of Entry No. 12
as it stood prior to the amendment and Entry No. 18 as it
stood on the date of the election in question would show
that the Parliament while substituting the Schedule by a new
Schedule by Act No. 108 of 1976 intended to make a departure
from the old law and that every person who belonged to any
’Mana’ community whether it had any affinity with Gond tribe
or not would be entitled to the privilege of contesting at
the election from the reserved constituency. The question
for consideration before us therefore is whether by reason
of the amendment made in the year 1976, persons belonging to
the Mana community to which the appellant belonged and which
was not a Scheduled Tribe before such amendment can be
considered as persons belonging to a Scheduled Tribe after
such amendment.
Apart from Article 366(25) of the Constitution, there
is no other definition of the expression "Scheduled Tribes".
Scheduled Tribes are, therefore, only those which are deemed
under Article 342 of the Constitution to be Scheduled
Tribes. Hence in order to find out whether a community is a
Scheduled Tribe or not, we have only to see the order which
is made under Article 342 of the Constitution.
Mr. M. N. Phadke, learned counsel for the appellant
drew the attention of the Court to the omission of the word
’including’ which according to him, had been used in Entry
No. 12 of the Schedule as it stood prior to the amendment to
indicate that the communities mentioned after it were those
having affinity with the ’Gond’ tribe, from the new Entry
No. 18 of Part IX of the Schedule to the Order and
1143
contended that the group of communities mentioned in Entry
No. 18 need not necessarily be those having mutual affinity
amongst them. On the above basis, it was urged on behalf of
the appellant that a person belonging to any ’Mana’
community should be treated as a person belonging to a
Scheduled Tribe even though it had no affinity with the
’Gond’ tribe. We find it difficult to agree with the
submission made by him. Sometimes, the word ’including’ is
used in a definition to give an extended meaning also to
the word defined. In Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps(1),
Lord Watson observed that when the word ’include’ is used
in an interpretation clause to enlarge the meaning of words
or phrases in a statute "these words or phrases must be
construed as comprehending, not only such things as they
signify according to their natural import but also those
things which the interpretation clause declares that they
shall include". Sometimes the word ’includes’ is used as a
synonym for ’means’ and not as a word of extension, but
limitation. This again is clear from the following
observations of Lord Watson in the decision referred to
above:-
"But the word ’include’ is susceptible of another
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
construction, which may become imperative, if the
context of the Act is sufficient to show that it was
not merely employed for the purpose of adding to the
natural significance of the words or expressions
defined. It may be equivalent to ’mean and include’,
and in that case it may afford an exhaustive
explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of
the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or
expressions."
In South Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufacturers
Association & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.(2) this Court
interpreted the expression ’includes’ found in Entry No. 22
which had been included in Part I of the Schedule to the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by the Gujarat Government as being
equivalent to ’means’. It is significant that even when it
was possible to give an extended meaning to the expression
’Mana’ appearing in Entry No. 12 in the Order before the
amendment relying on the presence of the word ’including’ in
that Entry, this Court gave a restricted meaning to it and
held that only that ’Mana’ community which had affinity with
the Gond community could be considered as a Scheduled Tribe
and that Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana community to which the
appellant belonged could not be treated as a Scheduled
Tribe. Now that the word ’including’ has been omitted from
the present Entry No. 18, is it open to construe it as
including communities which had no affinity with the
principal tribe ’Gond’ mentioned first in that Entry?
1144
We do not think that it is possible to do so. Even though
the proceedings of the Joint Committee cannot be relied upon
for the purpose of construing the Order, they may be looked
into to ascertain the circumstances in which the several
communities were grouped under one Entry or the other. The
extract from the proceedings of the Joint Committee quoted
above shows that in order to avoid confusion, the Committee
recommended to follow the words in Article 342 of the
Constitution and to enlist the "tribes or tribal communities
or parts of, or groups within, tribes or tribal communities"
under specific Entries. It also recommended that the main
tribe should be mentioned first in any Entry followed by its
synonyms and its sub-tribes in alphabetical order. Even
without the aid of the proceedings of the Joint Committee,
it is possible to arrive at the same conclusion in the
context in which the word ’Mana’ is found in Entry No. 18.
Part IX of the Schedule to the Order as it stands today
contains 47 Entries. In certain entries only one community
is mentioned and in certain others. two or more communities
are mentioned. It is obvious that certain communities have
been grouped together under a single entry in the light of
Article 342 of the Constitution which requires parts of or
groups within a tribal community also to be specified in the
order issued thereunder. It is, therefore, reasonable to
hold that the communities mentioned against any specific
entry are those which have mutual affinity amongst them.
It is also not possible to hold that by replacing the
Schedule to the Order by a new Schedule by the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976,
the Parliament intended to treat persons belonging to
’Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana’ community also as Scheduled Tribes.
If really that was the intention, the Parliament would have
mentioned ’Mana’ community under an independent entry. The
inclusion of the ’Naikpod’ community amongst the group of
communities in Entry No. 18 for the first time also is of no
special significance since the appellant has admitted in the
course of his evidence that ’Naikpod’ is also a tribe, found
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
alongwith other Scheduled Tribes in that area and it is not
stated that the said tribe has no affinity with them. It may
have been omitted from the order earlier due to oversight.
A reading of the Schedule to the Order also shows that
where there are two communities with the same name, one
having affinity with a tribe and the other not having
anything to do with such tribe and both are treated as
Scheduled Tribes the community which has affinity with
another tribe is shown alongwith it in the same group
against a single entry and the other is shown against a
different entry. This is illus-
1145
trated by the inclusion of the ’koya’ community having
affinity with ’Gonds’ in Entry No. 18 and the ’koya’
community having no such affinity in Entry No. 33 of Part IX
of the Schedule to the Order. If the Parliament intended to
treat the appellant’s community also as a Scheduled Tribe,
it would have shown ’Mana’ community under a separate entry.
No such entry is found in the Schedule.
Some arguments were addressed at the Bar on the basis
of the difference in the punctuation marks used in Entry 12
and in entry 18. It is well known that punctuation marks by
themselves do not control the meaning of a statute when its
meaning is otherwise obvious. Hence we do not feel that we
should deal with it in greater detail having regard to the
nature of this case.
We are, therefore of the view that the ’Mana’ community
included in Entry No. 18 can only be that which has affinity
with ’Gonds’ and any other community which also bears the
name ’Mana’ but does not have any such affinity cannot be
deemed to fall within the scope of ’Mana’ in Entry No. 18.
The appellant has categorically admitted in the course
of his evidence that there was no connection between his
community and Gonds. His evidence is, "We have no concern
with the Gond community also. The customs and traditions
with regand to marriage of our community are different from
those of the Gonds". He has also stated in his deposition
that ’I have no concern whatsoever with Gonds. There are
sub-castes amongst Gonds. Some of them are Arak, Gowari, Raj
gond, Bada Magia, Madia, Ojha and Wanjari. It is not true
that Mana is a sub-caste of the Gonds. There is no community
known as Gond’. That the appellant was a member of the
’Mana’ community which has the qualification of ’Kshatriya’
is established by his admission in his deposition that he
was a member of the Kshatriya Mana Shikshana Sahayak Mandal,
Chandrapur. Although in another part of his statement of
objections, there are some contradictory statements, the
following plea in para 9 of the said statement makes it
obvious that there is a community called Kshatriya Bidwaik
Mana community:-
"9-As to Para 11 :-It is admitted that the
respondent No. 1 was the Vice-President for some time
and also an active worker of the Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana
Shikshana Sanastha. The object of the said institution
was not limited to spread education amongst the boys
belonging to Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana community, and it
is denied that the said
1146
society has been founded in order to give educational
facilities to the students belonging to this community
only".
In the appeal filed by the appellant where the question
was whether he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe or not, this
Court observed:
"That there are sub-tribes amongst the Gonds is
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
not denied. Names of some of those sub-tribes are
included in Entry 12 of Item 5 of Part VII-A of the
Schedule is also a matter which is beyond dispute. The
customs, manners, form of worship, and dress of the
members of the Maratha Mana community are all different
from the customs manner, form of worship and dress of
the Gonds. No rational explanation has been suggested
why the Parliament should have, while including under
Entry 12 several sub-tribes of Gonds, specified Mana
under that entry, if Manas had no affinity at all with
Gonds. The appellant was uncertain about the claim that
he was making. In the nomination paper filed by him he
claim to be a Gond (Mana). His subsequent explanation
that he did so because the rules so required cannot be
accepted as true. He relied upon the status of a Mana
in the belief that all Manas were intended to be given
the benefit of the privileges conferred by the
Scheduled Tribes Order. He described himself as a Gond
(Mana). Realizing thereafter that his community had no
affinity with the Gonds he stated that he was not a
Gond; that he had nothing to do with the Gonds, and
that his community had also nothing to do with the
Gonds. He rested his claim solely upon the description
in Entry 12 in item 5 of Part VIIA of the Schedule. But
the form in which the entry is made prima facie
indicates that in the view of the Legislature, Mana was
a sub-tribe of Gonds and a Mana who was a member of the
sub-tribe of Gonds alone was entitled to the privileges
conferred by the Schedule to the Scheduled Tribes
Order.
We therefore agree with the High Court that the
appellant, merely because he belonged to the Mana
community amongst the Marathas, is not eligible to
stand as a candidate for election to the Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly from the reserved seat of the
Armori constituency in Gadchiroli tahsil of Chanda
District."
The position has not since changed even though the
Schedule to the Order is substituted by a new Schedule.
There has only been a
1147
re-arrangement of the Schedule with slight modification
which has no effect on the question at issue in this case.
The High Court was, therefore, right in rejecting the
case of the appellant that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe,
and in setting aside his election to the Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly.
In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed
with costs.
P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.
1148