Dismissed

Shri. Shamrao Dharma Vantamuri and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Dec 2014PIL/220/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, petitioners sought a directive to include Berad, Bedar, and Ramoshi communities in the Scheduled Tribes list. The Court held it could not entertain the petition as it cannot amend or alter the ST list or make an enquiry into tribal status, relying on prior Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Polytony of letters for conjoining the petition for the use of States Idl with these others was declined.

Shri. Shamrao Dharma Vantamuri and Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

PIL220-4.12

1/2

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.220 OF 2014

¶7

Shamrao Dharma Vantamuri and others ...Petitioners. versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Virendra Neve and Rani Amruta Patil for the Petitioners.

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

4^th December, 2014.

P.C. :

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. In the presidential order issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, according to the case of the Petitioner, Barda, Bhil and Nayaka have been included in the list of Scheduled Tribes. The prayers made in this PIL read thus :

¶14

“a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the State Government to include Berad, Bedar, Ramoshi etc. being synonymous names of one and the same tribe of BARDA (Sr. No.3) and NAYAKA (Sr. no.35) of the ST List, in the Scheduled Tribes list by making necessary amendments; b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold Bed-Berda, Berad,

PIL220-4.12

2/2

PNP

Barda, Bedar, Naik-Nayaka, Naikwadi, Naik-Makkalu, Walmiki, Talwar, Ramoshi etc. are the synonymous names of one and the same community.”

¶19

Thus, in short, the Petitioners want this Court to make an enquiry into the question whether communities Bedar, Berad and Ramoshi are synonyms of Barda and Nayaka. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others¹ , it is not open for the writ Court to make such an enquiry. It is not permissible for the writ Court to amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes by including any sub-divisions or otherwise.

¶20

It is, therefore, not possible to entertain this Petition for the grant of the aforesaid reliefs. The grant of the aforesaid reliefs will be completely contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.

¶21

Therefore, we decline to entertain the Petition. The Petition is rejected. We, however, make it clear that this order will not preclude the Petitioners from making an appropriate representation to the appropriate authority seeking inclusion of certain communities in the list of Scheduled Tribes.

¶22

1 AIR 2001 SC 393.

Shri. Shamrao Dharma Vantamuri and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Shamrao Dharma Vantamuri and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sardulsingh Hirasingh Fauji Vs Gurudwara Committee, Nanded and Others

The Sanjivani (Takli) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Ahmednagar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manish Waman Khavale Vs the Tree Authority - Khopoli Municipal Council and Ors.

Annasaheb Mansing Aute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Murlidhar Bhivsan Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Kailas Nivrutti Khadke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Kailas Nivrutti Khadke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shahajirao Dhondiba Thorat Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kiran Piraji Nangare Vs Paras Bhomraj Oswal and Ors.

Mrs. Jaymala Shahajirao Kharade and Ors. Vs Collector, Miraj and Ors.

Shri. Madhukar Vitthal Jakkal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Shamrao Dharma Vantamuri and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh Ganpati Dhonukshe Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Uday Gajanan Warde and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.