BHOTIYA JANJATI SANGHARSH SAMITI, NOW BHOTIYA JAN KALYAN SAMITI Vs. DR. R.S. TOLIYA, FORMER PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST, GRAM VIKAS AND SAMAJ KALYAN, NOW CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition has been moved under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 for punishing the opposite parties for alleged wilful disobedience of Court's order dated 8th May, 2003, passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1654 (M/B) of 2001.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner is a body looking after the interest of the tribals of Dharchula and Munsiary of District Pithoragarh and filed a Writ Petition No. 50718 of 1999 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (now transferred to this Court under U.P. Re -organisation Act, 2000) claiming the relief therein that the Notification dated 24.6.1967, by which six communities including Bhotiyas were declared Scheduled Tribes under order of the President of India (copy of Notification as Annexure -1 to the contempt petition) be made applicable to all the residents of 'Bhot' area of the tehsil Dharchula and Munsiary. In other words, the petitioner sought that all castes residing within said tehsils be given benefit of the aforesaid Notification. Disposing of the writ petition the Division Bench of this Court after hearing the parties passed following order on 8.5.2003 : 'Heard Sri L.P. Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.S. Bisht, learned counsel for the respondents. After creation of the State of Uttaranchal, most of the grievances of the members belonging to the petitioner's community have been redressed for locating the area and providing the Presidential Order by which members of the petitioner's community have been declared Scheduled Tribes. The grievance only left is that remaining benefits claimed by them under the Constitution shall be given by implementing the Notification dated 24.6.1967, in pursuance of which Bhotiyas have been declared Scheduled Tribes. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court ; State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 4. We dispose of this writ petition in terms of the aforesaid judgment.' Sd. A.C.J. Sd. Irshad Hussain, J.

(3.) THE notices were issued to the opposite parties who have filed their separate counter -affidavits. In the counter -affidavit of the opposite party No. 1, Dr. R.S. Toliya, the Chief Secretary, it is stated that he has the highest respect for the Hon'ble Court but the allegations against the answering respondent are misconceived and false as there was no direction or order of Hon'ble Court to the deponent to do any particular act and as such no question of deliberate and wilful disobedience of the Court's order. It is further submitted that in the writ petition, the petitioners have alleged that the word 'Bhotiya' in terms of Presidential Order dated 24.6.1967 issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India pertains to a region and not to a category of people. But the order by which the writ petition is disposed of, there is no direction to the answering respondent to comply said order: Inl'act, in view of Article 342(2) it is the Parliament and Parliament alone who can exercise powers of exclusion or inclusion of any. category of people in the given tribe. The same has been held also in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 4. In the counter -affidavit it has been further stated that there was no action required to be taken at the level of the District Magistrate or that of the answering respondent. The opposite party No. 2, Mr. Naveen Chandra Sharma, the then District Magistrate, Pithoragarh, has also made the similar statements in his counter -affidavit.