LAWS(SC)-1990-2-21

SRISHKUMARCHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

Decided On February 23, 1990
SRISH KUMAR CHOUDHURY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TRFPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(3.) This appeal had come up for final hearing earlier and by a brief judgment, a two-Judge Bench recorded the following order: