PRABHU NIARAN SAMUEL SURIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the course of argument, it has come to notice of this Court that as per provision made in Vth Schedule of the Constitution of India a "Tribal Advisory Council" is required to be constituted. However, as per learned Advocate General such "Tribal Advisory Council" has been constituted in the State of Jharkhand.

(2.) IN this writ petition, it has been stated that in view of Article 243 M, part IX of the Constitution of India shall not apply to the Scheduled Areas. However, Article 243M as such is applicable to the States of Nagaland, Meghalay and Mizoram. According to the petitioner when Panchayati Raj Act was enacted in the State of Bihar and in the State of Andhra Pradesh, their applicability were challenged and the Patna High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court held that in view of the provision of Article 243M Panchayat Raj Act cannot be made applicable in the Scheduled Areas. Finding this situation, according to petitioner by invoking the provision as provided in Clause (4)(b) of Article 243M, Parliament enacted Panchayat Extension to the Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996. In Section 4(O) of the said Act of 1996 a duty has been cast upon the State legislature to make an endeavor to follow the pattern of VIth Schedule to the Constitution while designing the administrative arrangement of the Panchayats at district level in the Scheduled Areas. Petitioner's grievance is that even after enactment of Act of 1996, after passing of about 16 years, no enactment has been made by the State legislature to give effect to the spirit of Section 4(O) of the Act of 1996.

(3.) PETITIONER in this writ petition specifically pleaded that following Areas have been declared Scheduled Areas by extraordinary gazette notification dated 11th April, 2007: