Public Interest Litigation seeking direction to include synonymous names in the Scheduled Tribes list. Court declined to entertain the petition, relying on the Apex Court decision that writ courts cannot amend or alter the Scheduled Tribes list.
Petition rejected; no direction to amend Scheduled Tribes list given.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
PIL220-4.12
1/2
PNP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.220 OF 2014
Shamrao Dharma Vantamuri and others ...Petitioners. versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents.
Mr. Virendra Neve and Rani Amruta Patil for the Petitioners.
CORAM : A.S. OKA &
A.S. GADKARI, JJ.
4th 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 :
“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.”
1 AIR 2001 SC 393.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ Court can direct the State to include synonymous communti es in the Scheduled Tribes list by amending it.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra v. Milind and othersRelied on¶19
State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others (2001) AIR 393 SC · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shamrao Dharma Vantamuri and others
State of Maharashtra and others
A.S. OKA
A.S. GADKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
