(1.) The present challenge is against an order bearing no.16 dated November 26, 2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kakdwip, cancelling the schedule tribes certificate awarded to the present writ petitioners.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argues on the strength of a decision reported at AIR 1995 SC 94 (Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others) that the procedure to be followed in awarding and cancelling such certificates was laid down in the said judgment. A detailed consideration of the customary beliefs and practices as well as the inhabitants of intractable terran regions of the country who were kept away from the mainstream of national life and with their traditional moorings were to be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether a person belongs to the schedule tribes. Detailed guidelines were laid down in the said judgment as to how such certificates should be issued or cancelled and the several considerations which were to be taken into account before arriving at a decision as to the social status of the concerned person vis-a-vis-vis his/her claim to be a member of the tribe or tribal community.
(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a member of the 'Bagti' community, which is a subgroup under the Bhumij/Munda tribal community and as such the scheduled tribe certificate was rightly granted in favour of the petitioners. In support of such contentions, learned counsel further submits that there are textual authorities which are of the opinion that the 'Bagti' community, as distinct from the 'Bagdi' community, is a sub-community under the Munda tribe.