RAMPRAKASH PAHARIYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners as a Public Interest Litigation. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. A.S. Gokhle, learned Government Advocate to the locus standi of the petitioner in filing this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation. He submitted that the petitioner has been charge-sheeted under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, the petitioner has not filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India with clean hands. The Court at its own discretion refuses to entertain a writ petition at the instance of a petitioner who does not approach the Court with clean hands.

(2.) The petitioners have stated in the writ petition that under Arts. 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, the President of India has issued notification specifying the castes, races, tribes or parts of groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purpose of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners have contended that a caste or a tribe notified under Clause (1) of Art. 341 and Clause (1) of Art. 342 is deemed to be Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in relation to a particular State and, therefore, persons who are included in the notifications issued under Clause (1) of Art. 341 and Clause (1) of Art. 342 of the Constitution as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in other States cannot be deemed to be Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners have therefore prayed that circular dated 1.4.1998 (Annex.P4) in so far as it directs that officers belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of All India Services whose services have been or will be allotted to M.P. State and family members depending on them shall be deemed member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in Madhya Pradesh on the condition that their caste is included in the Schedule of Scheduled Caste/Tribe in or any part of Madhya Pradesh State, be quashed.

(3.) After hearing Mr. Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.S. Gokhle, learned Government Advocate for the respondents, we find that in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another vs. Union of India and another, (1994) 5 S.C.C. 244, the facts were that the State of Maharashtra had denied the benefits and privileges available to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes specified in relation to that State to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to other States, who had migrated from other State to the State of Maharashtra and the persons who were so deneid the benefits and privileges available to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by the State of Maharashtra contended before the Supreme Court inter-alia that a bare perusal of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Orders 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 as amended by Amendment Act, 1976 would show that same caste of Scheduled Tribe was specified in more than one State. Thus, the issue before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was where a person belonging to caste or tribe for purposes of Constitution to be Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in relation to State 'A' migrates to State 'B where a caste or tribe with the same nomenclature has been specified to be Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in relation to that State 'B', will that person be entitled to claim privileges and benefits eligible to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in State 'B' and the Supreme Court after considering its earlier decisions on the point including the decision of the Constitution Bench of theCourt in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others, (1990) 3 S.C.C. 130 answered this issue in the negative. Paragraph 16 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Action Committee, (supra) as reported in Supreme Court Cases at page 259 is quoted herein below: