fl^l^^/ BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(C) No. .;(/r /2009 PETITIONER: - ....-^^ ^.•••'rffS ly-'" ..•••' ..••' ^•^, ^>y" ^r^ /\..v"V «" VERSUS Parmanad Bhoi, S/o- Shri Ganga Ram Bhoi, Aged about 32 years, R/o.- Village- Chikhali, Post- Sukhipali, P.S. Pithaura Tehsil- Pithaura, District Mahasamund (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ^ ^y:.rf^.<^ s®".^i '"-•.•e^'.s • &s ^' ^>:yy ^; '-^?' ^^ / 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department Raipur (C.G.) 2) Union of India Through - Secretary, Ministry of Tribal affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 3) Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Jati Avum Anusuchit Janjati Ayog, Through-Chairman, Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Jati Avum Anusuchit Janjati Ayog, Raipur (C.G.) 4) Additional Tehsildar, Pithaura, Tehsil Pithaura, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 5) National Commission for Minorities Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi WRIT PETITIONJJNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. l^^^A:-^*aL^^--*^^<-^^Q^4^dlu_cu_danriili& si<£-Jind&r'- KS'^s^sssisissiSBsssxg^i-sf-'ws':.^;: HIGHCOURTOF fr-\ i^l Parmanad Bhoi \/^y— versu; State Others Chhattisaarh & ','/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDiA i:SB: Hon'ble Mr. K. Aanihotri. J.} Shri Anup Majumdar, Shri N.N. Rov, Panei Advocate for the petition< Lawver for the State. :. Solicitor i<^i jui u Ms. Fouzia Mirza, IDula. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha. Advocate for the resoondent No.3. (ORAU P.aosi-s.- liff -lf ^tf\'^ ZU l' 1. Bv this petition, the. petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents No. 1 , 3 & 5 to conduct enquiry, investigation or sup/ey v/ith regard to t'ne caste Suara/Sanwara tribes, and further, a direction to the Union of india to take steos as per the provisions of the Constitution (Scheduie Tribes) Order 1950 as Schedule Tribe for the State of Chhattisgarh. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitloner submits that the State of Chhattisaarh, after havina made the enquiry and investiaation, made a recommendatlon to the Union of india to declare the abovestated caste as Scheduled Tribe. 3. Learned Assistant Solicitor Gensrai submits that the recommendat.'on Has been recelved by the Union of India on 08/09/2008 without spprovai frorn the Reaistrar General of India. Thus, it was sent back to the State Government o? Chhaitlsgarh for seeking report of the Registrar Generai of india. Thereafter, the recommendation was again ma.de on ^ WS'SSk ~'li"'"a8 .<g '.^'f~s- ^: 23/01/2009 v.'hich has been referred to the Registrar General of India on 19/03/2009. The report of the Registrar General of India on the recommendation made by the State of Chhattisgarh is sti!! awaited and 'vvhen the report is received, the same sha!l be considered and decided at the eariisst. Thus, nothing sumves for adjudication. 4. With regard to the facts as aforestated, the interest of justice would be subserved If Union of india iooks into the recommendations and pass appropriate order on making appropriate deciaration, in accordance with iaw, as eariy as oossibie. view of foreaoina, the petition stands disDosed of. 'ty" '^i -• '" ? Sd/- SatishK.Ag°ibotn Judge Arun