VINAY PRAKASH AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 17-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

VINA Y PRAKASH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 17, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ,] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 342(1) and 366(25)--Scheduled Tribe-Claim for status 
of-Presidential Notification containing "Lohara" as Scheduled C 
Trib~"Lohars of Bihar, 
a backward community, claiming the status of 
Scheduled Tribes on the basis of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
orders (Amendment) Act, 1976-ln English version of the Presidential 
Notification, Lo/tars was not shown as a Scheduled Trib~But in Hindi 
version it found place in the Notification-Writ petition of appellants dis- D 
missed by High Court-Held Presidential Notification was unequivocal, and, 
there/ ore, Lohars were not Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of the defini-
tion "Scheduled Tribes" under Article 366(25) read with the Notification 
issued by the President of India under Article 342( 1)--Since the entry gained 
was based on wrong translation made by the Department and order was 
obtained on that basis, the same cannot be made the basis of the status of E 
Scheduled Trib~Appellants were not entitled to the status of Scheduled 
Tribe from the inception-There is no illegality in the decision of High Court 
warranting interferenc~Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders 
(Amendment) Act, 1976. 
F 
Nityanand Shamta v. State of Bihar, [1996] 3 SCC 576, relied on. 
B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, [1965] 1 SCR 316; Srish 
Kumar Choudhury v. State of Tripura, [1990] Supp. SCC 220; Pa/ghat 
1handan Sanmdhaya Samrakshana Samiti v. State of Kerala, [1994] 1 SCC 
359; Parasram v. Shivchand, [1969] 1 SCC 20 and Shambhoo Nath v. Union G 
of India & Anr., C.A. No. 4631/90 decided on 15.9.1990, referred to. 
State of Kamataka v. Kumar G.N. Ambiga, [1995] Supp. 2 SCC 560 
and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Bala Musalaiah, [1995] 1 SCC 184, 
held inapplicable. 
H 
97 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 2714 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.96 of the Patna High 
Court in L.P.A. No. 831of1996. 
B 
Rajiv Dhawan and Navin Prakash for the Petitioners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This is the fourth attempt made by the Lohar Community to get into 
the status of Lohara. lohars are, admittedly, blacksmiths, a backward 
C community in the State of Bihar. Lohars are Scheduled Tribes in the State 
of Bihar. 
This special leave petition arises from the judgment and order of the 
,..Patna High Court, made on October 10, 1996 in LP A No. 831/96. The 
D President of India, in exercise of the power under Article 342(1) of the 
Constitution read with Article 366(25), notified the Scheduled Tribes for 
the State of Bihar thus: "such. tribe or tribal communities or parts of or 
groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under 
Articie 342 to be scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution," 
Thereafter, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amend-
E ment) Act, 1976 came to be made adding to or deleting from the lists 
certain castes. In Entry 20 of the Entries in relation to the State of Bihar, 
Lohara was wrongly translated as Lohra and the same was published in the 
State Gazette notification. That came to be rectified by notification pub-
lished by the government on January 6, 1995. In the meanwhile, there was 
p 
spate of litigation after the 1976 Amendment Act and the Lohars - a 
backward class - as stated earlier, claimed the status of Scheduled Tribes. 
When the said claims for social status of Scheduled Tribes came to be 
rejected, the petitioner' approached the courts. While the desired social 
status certificates were granted by the High Court in some cases, the same 
was refused in others. When the matter had come up for the first time, 
G before a Bench of three Judges of this Court, to which one of us (K. 
Ramaswamy, J.) was a member, in Shambhoo Nath v. Union of India & 
Anr. C.A. No. 4631/90 decided On september 15, 1990, it was wrongly 
conceded by the counsel appearing for the Union of India that they were 
entitled to the status of scheduled Tribes. Ort that premis<:, the order of 
H the Administrative Tribunal was set aside and direction was given to issue 
y 
VINAYPRAKASHv. STATE 
99 
the certificate of Scheduled Tribes. Since the social status certificates were A 
not issued despite direction in this regard, a writ petition under Article 32 
was again fil

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.