-HG—78 3^T "i<l<ll<?><<, ®Tfl«'l<o,Rltfiyy .l^jB....loo:fc :^ •WR-IT g^f^-"---1---'-----^-------^ 200^ an^yr TR% (lyF'jai^iai) OT^I ?iT R;-<i.<* WT ^Tt^fT sr>+iiqi ^^nw^rftcT sn^r PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Versi<s 1. 3. 4. 7. 8. 9 10. <bl*ifd<nT1 'HFT^f^l^^ ^Rn$i< ^? stRpr sn^r Ram Singh Sidar, S/o Daharu Saura, aged about 35 years, R/o village Parsada, Post Patrapati, Teshil & Distt. Raigarh (CG). State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur S.D.O. Revenue & Prescribed Authority, Raigarh (CG). Tahsildar, Raigarh (CG). Lalit Kumar, S/o Parasram, R/o village Dongadhakel, Tahsil Raigarh (CG). Goverdhan Sidar, S/o Bachcharam, R/o village Muraripali, Tahsil Raigarh(CG). Hansaram, S/o Khedu Kanwar, R/o village Dongadhakel, Tahsil Raigarh (CG). Udal Singh, S/o Sadhram Kanwar. Shatrughan, S/o Dholmani Kanwar. Dorilal Rathiya, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Dashrath Rathiya. Respondent No.7, 8 & 9 are resident ofvillage Parsada, Tahsil & District Raigarh (CG). Inspector General of Registration & Superintendent of Stamps, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, totela Building, Raipur (CG). -He—78 3f!^I W R'li'* ^l'taiIcFnst'fiii •c' ~F5Sf ^w^f, ®T(1wre,facii'yy *11*1<»II a»*ii<n _...^J>,.1°0.<?^.......................Wt. 200^ OT^?T iraw Cpf^??) ^•«n^i<^^asn^i 11. *i<ii<'i<fl-( wfvS 4_ft^ <r<>i<si< ^;3JRm3II^?T Collector, Raigarh (CG). {Writ Petition under Artcle 2|26/227 of the Constitution of India} Sinale Bench: Hon'bl 10-1-M08 Mr. Roop Naik, counsel for Mr. Satish Gupta, Deputy eMr. Justice L.C. Bhadoo hepetftioner. ovt. Advocate for the State/respondents No.1,2,3,10&11. Mr.Pushpendra KumarPat^l, counsel for respondent No.4. The petifloner, who was el< Pareada, has preferred this wi| Constitution of India, questioning cted as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat: it petition under Article 227 of the legality and correetness of the order dated 2-2-2006 passed by the S||>ecified OfRcer (Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue), Raigarh, in revenue| case No.OS/A-89/2004-05, whereby tearned Specified Officer held that Tribeas per the notification No.^ published in gazette on 2-12-1960 the petitioner herein is not a Scheduled iOOO-1905-VII-Na 1 dated 25-11-1960 and other notifications issued from time to time in that connection. Brief facte leading to filing ^)f this writ petition arethat Panchayat elections were held in the State of] Chhattisgarh in the year 2005 and in those elections the petitioner het'ein and the respondents contested election for the post of Sarpanch o1| Gram Panchayat Parsada, which was reserved for ST category. The p^titioner herein was dectared elected. Said election ofthe petitioner herei^i was challenged by respondents No.4 to8 herein on the groundthat the t?ost of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Parsada has been reserved for ST category, Ram Singh Sidar, the petitioner herein, is a Saura pEfl?^ by caste, whereas Sawar (•MICK) & XI-HC—78 3:eg -^W^, ^W\d, w^wy. Niycii **<!* M-.&.JO^....—^^ sn^ira^ (1pt^?p) ^iiid'n-i tiit«rtf'if.fa]<a<ri^R ^sifirTan^i 3i^r?irfeti?T gs'l^,3]K?I stiiiw Sawara (TO^T) are STand Saur^i C^) is not ST, therefore, the petitioner herein was not eligible to cont^st etection. That election petition was resisted by the petitioner herein|and one Shyam Sundar, opportunity to tead evidence was given (Q bofli the parties, both the parties ted their e^dence and produced docu(nents & material on record. After considering the material and h^aring both the parti^, vide impugned order dated 2-2-2006 leamed ^pecified Officer hetd that the petitioner herein being Saura (^ffn) by caste, M^ich is not included in fte list of ST order, was not entitled to contest election, as such, his election was set aside. 1 have heard teamed coun^el for the parties. Mr. Roop Naik, leamed ^ounsel for the petitioner, argued that Sawar (W^R) & Sawara ^SV) ar^ included in the list of ST order issued for the State of Madhya Pradesh ()fwhich Chhattisgarh was a part and in this area Sawara fif^n) arealso (;atted asSaura (?fl?1) and all Uie Saura Ctffin) are taking the benefit of ST in favour ofthe petitioner, as such status that is why certificate was issued , the decisjon ofthe Specified Officer is not in accordance w'rth law. On the other hand, leamed{»unseltor the respondente argued that only those castes who are includ^d in the tist of ST order are entitled for the benefit of ST status and evenltheirsub-caste or other similar castes are not entitled for the benefit of SJ status. In this eonnection, it may b^ pointed out that similar point came up for consideration before the Consiftution Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v where the question for considera< Milind & Others (AIR 2001 SC 393) ion was that whether Hatba includes 7SET -Ml^lcl-4, aiTn'M'ls, {s|<7>l'My iTraCT' g»Ni*"""~ "^ 200<S anSsnraq; C^f^?") 3n^?t ?ii-R;-<i<* WT SIR^T »•<]'» '!.•' ^ttI^R yt^tt cbl'4fd*l1Tt 'RCT^f '^fsl3t' ^(ot-^K ^3lfOT311^[ ^ Halba KoshU as ST caste in cettain areas of the State of Maharashtra. After detailed discussion, the C<| nstitution Bench held that Halba Koshti are not Halba. Relevant ratio l^iddown by the Apex Court in para 35 reads as under: i "1. It is not at all pe(missible to hold any enquiry or let in any evidence fo decide or declare that any tribe or tribal commui|ii1y or part of or group within any tribe or tribal cortimunity is included in the general name even thou^h it is nptspecifically mentioned in the conceril (Scheduled Trib^s)0rder, 1950. ed entry in the Constitution 2. The Scheduled I It is not even pei tribe, part of o community is syn ribes Order must be read as it is. missible to say that a tribe, sub- group of any tribe or tribal ^nymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order W they are not so specifically mentit>ned in it. 3. A notification iss 342, specifying amended only jed under Clause (1)of Articte Scheduled Tribes, can be )y law to be made by the Parliament. In <>ther words, any tribe or tribal community or par|l of or group within any tribe can be incfuded or exfcluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued urwi er Ctause (1) of Article 342 only by the Parliame|nt by law and by no other authority. 'S'SSf rtfWl^, t?Tfl'M'l<c, IS|<^1^< an^rw^m? 'cTSff STI^T i^+iitr •—1; ^- Soma ^ bi^-. A-^ y^f ^W^ **<!* ^)f (GO^O^ fw "^ an^r ^ra% ('jnf-i,8"^) 'g^IT^ ^ffttT 3H^?T 4. It is not open to] tribunals or any or alter the list oll notification issuej In view of the above decfeion (Vfil'f) & Savrara (WKf) are inclucjed Saura (AO is not included in the (^ is not entiUed to take the t}< caste. Therefore, 1 do notfind ar^ Specified Officerand he has not petition is liable to be dlsmissed ai^d Stay granted earlier stands | Consequently, I.A.No.1, M.< stand disposed of. <*Wl<'l<il-l *flli:ifTf.fe%t <Rl({l< i?3ifin3ii^r IState Govemments or Courte or |other authority to modify, amend |Scheduted Trib^ specified !n the under Clause (1) of Article 342." i, as per the ST Oreler only Sawar in the ST category at S.No.45 and !T category. The petitioner being Saura (enefit of Sawar (w?^ or Sawara (w?9 Hlegality or infirmity in the order pf the |;omm!tted any Jurisdletional error, The it is hereby dismissed. ^/acated. (W.).P.No.783Q006 & I.A.No.2552/2006 Sdf- L.C. Bhadoo Judge