MILIND Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ALONGWITH INTERVENORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A section of our people suffers for generations from social, educational, cultural and economical deprivations. Hence our Constitutions makes provides of much needed protective discrimination in their favour with the ultimate object of achieving real equality. This inevitably led to the problem of their identification. Major section of this class has been specified in the Constitution as "Scheduled Castes" and "Scheduled Tribes" Constitution does not define these terms but the president was empowered under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution to draw up their lists on consultation with the Governor of the State. The President did prepare two lists by the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order 1950 ( SC Order) and the Constitution (Schedules Tribes) 1950 (ST Order). By virtue of authority conferred by these very Articles, the Parliament amended the lists by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 (The Act"). In this and other concerned cases, we are concerned with the Scheduled Tribes "Halba/Halbi at entry No 19, para IX, Second Schedule of the Act. In the S.T. Order, Halbas from the following areas only were covered :

(2.) The principal point that falls for consideration is whether "Halba Koshtis" is a sub-tribe of Halba/Halbi within the meaning of the entry.

(3.) In the list, certain sub-tribes find specific mention under the general head. In the Entry No. 19, no sub-tribe is mentioned. The first question that falls for determination, therefore, is whether it is at all permissible to hold enquiry as to whether a particular group within that tribal community is included in the general name or not. Both parties revised on several decisions in which treatment to this subject is given. In the case of (Basavalingappa v. Munichinappa) A.I.R. 1965 SC 1269 which is a first case on point, following observations are made :