Dismissed

Elgar Pratishthan, through Its Secretary, Kalyan Kumar ,Chandrapur and Others v. the Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi

Bombay HC13 Jun 2018PIL/70/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL filed by displaced persons who migrated to Gadchiroli District and rely on forest produce for livelihood. They sought to be classified as traditional forest dwellers under the 2006 Act despite lacking three generations of presence.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to take suitable steps as open in law. No costs.

Elgar Pratishthan, through Its Secretary… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 pil70.2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 70/2018

¶4

Elgar Pratishthan & ors. ..VS..

¶5

Union of India & ors.

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

- - - - Shri S.S. Sanyal, Advocate for petitioner(s) Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. GP for respondent nos. 3 to 9

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ. DATED : 13/06/2018

¶10

1] The 26 individuals and a public trust are before this Court with a prayer that being displaced persons, they have migrated from other country to this part of country between 1964 and 1970 and the State Government has as per law asked them to settle in various areas of Gadchiroli District. Those areas/Tahsils are described in individual description of the petitioners. There they are dependent upon forest and forest produce only to earn their livelihood and as such no discrimination can be made between citizens residing there since long and the petitioners. Emphasis is, the petitioners have been constrained to live on forest/forest produce by circumstances.

¶11

2] In this situation, our attention is drawn to Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 particularly definition contained in Section 2 (o) to urge that it makes an artificial distinction particularly qua the petitioners.

¶12

2 pil70.2018

¶13

Requirement of staying in forest for three generations defeats the object of the Act that the persons like petitioners who are forest dwellers not by volition, must also be permitted to take advantage of such beneficial legislation.

¶14

3] Learned AGP has opposed the contention. He submits that provisions of law are very clear and an exception has been made out only in case of Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers.

¶15

4] Petitioners do not claim to be Scheduled Tribes. They are trying to compare themselves with forest dwellers. Section 2 (o) does not qualify all forest dwellers to seek benefit of above mentioned legislation. It enables only traditional forest dwellers to apply and seek benefit. Thus, even in case of citizens, residing in said area since long, they have to establish that atleast three generations prior to 13/12/2005, they are primarily residing and are dependent on forest or forest land.

¶16

5] The object of Act is therefore to assist Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers. We do no see anything wrong either with the object or then classification amongst forest dwellers i.e. traditional forest dwellers as defined in Section 2 (o). The diffrencia adopted is neither arbitrary nor irrelevant.

¶17

6] Petitioners therefore have not been discriminated again only because they have migrated from some other country or some other part. They are being treated similarly with the citizens who are not traditional forest dwellers. They are attempting to have new legislation or a new policy in the

¶18

3 pil70.2018

¶19

field. In this jurisdiction, it is not possible for us to look into the same.

¶20

7] Hence, with liberty to petitioners to take suitable steps as are open in law, we dispose of PIL. No costs.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

Ansari

Elgar Pratishthan, through Its Secretary, Kalyan Kumar ,Chandrapur and Others v. the Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elgar Pratishthan, through Its Secretary, Kalyan Kumar ,Chandrapur and Others v. the Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish S/O Gangaram Agrawal Vs the Director General of Civil Aviation and 2 Ors.

Sudesh Balkrishna Mukkawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Khurshed Soli Dhondy Vs Her Royal Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Kingdom of the Neatherlands and Ors.

Mr. Ganpat Jotiba Karade Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Belapur Parali Railway Pravasi Seva Sanstha through Its Secretary Ritesh Vijay Kumar Bhandari Vs the Union of India and Others

Parvez Razak Darvesh vs Dilawar Daud Gaonkhadkar and Ors.

Vidyasagar Dube Vs the Commissioner Mcgm and 6 Ors.

Dhanraj S/O Shrawan Giri and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and 2

Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) and Another Vs Smt. Ganeshibai Alias Sunderibai, W/O Late Shri Ghasiram S/O Arjun Gond

Dilip S/O Hanumanji Kalaskar Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Mumbai through Its Vice President and Others

Dilip S/O Hanumanji Kalaskar Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Mumbai through Its Vice President and Others

Meghraj Pundlik Dongare Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Jyotiram S/O Babusing Rathod Vs the Collector, Collector Office, Washim and Others

Jyotiram S/O Babusing Rathod Vs the Collector, Collector Office, Washim and Others