MEHARLATA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE of the petitioner is that she belongs to 'Mannewar' Tribe recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh. A certificate to the effect was granted to her by the Deputy Collector, Jabalpur, which has been cancelled by the Screening Committee vide the impugned order dated 8.11.2001. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition.

(2.) SHRI Harvinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is vitiated because the Screening Committee has proceeded under a misconception that 'Mannewar' is a sub -tribe of 'Gond' Tribe of Madhya Pradesh, mentioned in the Schedule Part -VIII Madhya Pradesh, at Sl. No. 16. He submitted that the caste of the petitioner has been duly established and the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration various important pieces of evidence. Demonstratively, he submitted that the Screening Committee has considered the report of Superintendent of Police and on its basis it has found that the original caste of the petitioner is 'Telugu'. Learned counsel submitted that 'Telugu' is a language and not a caste. Learned counsel further submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner namely, Shri Linganna Yeddey was a representative of 'Mannewar Samaj' and had represented Nagpur in the conference held in the year 1920. He referred to documents at pages No. 52 and 53 annexed to the writ petition. Accordingly, Shri Harvinder Singh, 'learned' counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner as contained in Annexure P -5 is liable to be restored.

(3.) CONSIDERED the submissions and perused the impugned order in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported as AIR 1995 SC 94 and in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others reported as (2001) 1 SCC 4. The apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) has held :