Manipur High Court
All Manipur Tribal Union vs Shri Mutum Churamani Meetei on 19 October, 2023
Digitally signed
KABORA by
KABORAMBAM
MBAM SAPANA
SAPANA CHANU
Date:
Item No. 1
CHANU 2023.10.20
13:45:07 -07'00'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
M.C. (WA) No. 88 of 2023
1. All Manipur Tribal Union, Represented by its President Mr. R.K
Ajin, aged about 64 years, S/o Late RK Lungtung, having its office
at Langol Tarung Village, PO & PS Lamphelpat, Imphal West
District, Manipur- 795004.
2. All Tribal Disabled Union (Govt. Regd. No. 259/M/SR/07),
represented by its President Mr. Momo Tantanga, aged about 31
years, S/o. Ks Angkha, having its registered office at Kabo Leikai,
Dewlahland, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur-
795001.
3. The Joint Co-ordination Committee on Tribal Rights, Represented
by its Executive member Mr. Majarin Phoumei, aged about 67
years, S/o (Late) Chakandinang Phoumei, having its office at
Tuibong Village, Churachandpur District, Manipur- 795128.
4. All Tribal Student Union Manipur (ATSUM) represented by its
Secretary Information & Publicity, Mr. Khaiminlen Doungel, aged
about 36 years, S/o Mr. Douthang Doungel, having its office at
Adimjati Complex, Chingmeirong, Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
5. All Tribal Student Union Manipur (ATSUM) represented by its
Secretary Rights and Reservation, Mr. Shimthar Jajo, aged about
38 years, S/o Silas Jajo, having its office at Adimjati Complex,
Chingmeirong, Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
Applicants
Vs.
1. Shri Mutum Churamani Meetei, aged about 62 years, S/o Late M.
Iboton Meetei of Kabo Leikai Dewlahland, P.O. & P.S- Porompat,
District-Imphal East, Manipur, who is the Secretary of the Meetei
(Meitei) Tribe Union being Regd. No. 15 of 2022.
2. Shri Puyam Ranachandra Singh, aged about 43 years, S/o Puyam
Kushumani Singh of Langathel Laikom Bazar, P.O. & P.S- Thoubal,
District-Thoubal, Manipur, who is the Member of the Meetei
(Meitei) Tribe Union being Regd. No. 15 of 2022.
3. Shri Thokchom Gopimohon Singh, aged about 73 years, S/o Late
Thokchom Somokanta Singh of Keisamthong Laisom Leirak, P.O.
& P.S- Imphal, District- Imphal West, Manipur-795001, who is the
Page 1
Member of the Meetei (Meitei) Tribe Union being Regd. No. 15 of
2022.
4. Shri. Sagolsem Robindro Singh, aged about 66 years, S/o S. Amu
Singh of Sagolband Khamnam Bazar, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel,
District-Imphal West, Manipur-795001, who is the Member of the
Meetei (Meitei) Tribe Union being Regd. No. 15 of 2022.
5. Shri. Elangbam Baburam, aged about 76 years, S/o (Late) E.
Leipakmacha Singh of Keirak Khongnang Leikai, P.S. Kakching
BPO Keirak, P.O. Kakching District-Kakching, Manipur, who is the
Member of the Meetei (Meitei) Tribe Union being Regd. No. 15 of
2022.
6. Shri. Leihaorambam Projit Singh, aged about 62 years, S/o L.
Surjit Singh of Sorok Atingbi Khunou Hilghat, P.O. & P.S.- Jiribam,
District-Jiribam, Manipur-795115 who is the Member of the Meetei
(Meitei) Tribe Union being Regd. No. 15 of 2022.
7. Shri Thiyam Romendro Singh, aged about 46 years, S/o Th. Ibobi
Singh of Ningthoukhong Ward No. 5, Ningthoukhong Kha
Bishnupur, P.O. & P.S.-Bishnupur, District-Bishnupur, Manipur-
795126, who is the Member of the Meetei (Meitei) Tribe Union
being Regd. No. 15 of 2022.
8. Shri Mutum Nilamani Singh, aged about 61 years, S/o M. Jadhop
Singh of Chingdong Leikai, P.O. & P.S.- Jiribam, District-Jiribam,
Manipur-795115, who is the Member of the Meetei (Meitei) Tribe
Union being Regd. No. 15 of 2022.
Private Respondents
9. The State of Manipur represented by Chief Secretary, Government
of Manipur, Babupara, Old Secretariat Complex, Imphal West,
Manipur.
10. The Chief Secretary of the Government of Manipur, Babupara, Old
Secretariat Complex, Imphal West, Manipur.
11. The Secretary Tribal Affairs and Hills Department, Babupara, Old
Secretariat Complex, Imphal West, Manipur.
12. The Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India,
Shistri Bhavan New-Delhi-110001.
Official Respondents
Page 2
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Applicants : Dr. Colin Gansalves, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Wungpam Yangya, Advocate.
For the official : Mr. M. Devananda, Addl. AG assisted by Ms.
respondents Jyotsana, Advocate and Mr. Armananda,
Advocate.
For the private : Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr. Advocate assisted
respondents by Mr. Ajoy Pebam, Advocate and Mr. N.
Jotendro, Sr. Advocate assisted by Md.
Abdul Baqee Khan, Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 05.10.2023.
Date of Judgment : 19.10.2023
& Order
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
(A.Bimol Singh.,J)
Heard Dr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Wungpam Yangya, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr. M.
Devananda, learned Addl. AG assisted by Ms. Jyotsana, learned counsel appearing
for respondents No. 9-11, Mr. Armananda, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 12, Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel and Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel assisted
by Md. Abdul Baqee Khan, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents
No. 1-8.
[2] The present application had been filed with a prayer for granting leave to
the applicants for filling an appeal against the Judgment and Order dated
27.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 229 of
2023.
Page 3
[3] Dr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants
submitted that the respondents No. 1-8 filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 229
of 2023 before this Court praying, inter-alia, for issuing a direction to the
Government of Manipur to submit the recommendation in reply to the letter dated
29.05.2013 of the Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs regarding
granting of Scheduled Tribes status to Meetei/Meitei Community in the State of
Manipur within a stipulated period. The said writ petition was disposed of by the
Ld. Single Judge by passing a judgment and Order dated 27.03.2023 with the
following directions:-
"17. In the result,
(i) The writ petition is disposed of.
(ii) The first respondent is directed to submit the recommendation
in reply to the letter dated 29.05.2013 of the Ministry of Tribal
Affairs, Government of India.
(iii) The first respondent shall consider the case of the petitioners
for inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei Community in the Scheduled
Tribe List, expeditiously, preferably within a period four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in terms of the
averments set out in writ petition and in the line of the order
passed in WP(C) No. 4281 of 2002 dated 26.05.2003 by the
Gauhati High Court.
(iv) No costs.
[4] The learned counsel submitted that the present applicants No. 1-5, who are
the office bearers of various Tribal Civil Society Unions/Associations/Student Unions
associated with the rights of the Tribal Community in the State of Manipur were
not a party in the said writ petition. It has been submitted that the said judgment
and order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in WP(C) No. 229 of
2023 has adversely affected the fundamental rights as well as the constitutional
Page 4
rights of the 34 (thirty four) recognized Tribes of the State of Manipur and
accordingly, the present application had been filed seeking leave of this court for
allowing the applicants to file an appeal against the said judgment and order.
[5] The learned senior counsel submitted that the applicants are aggrieved -
(i) Firstly because if the impugned order is allowed to stand and if,
ultimately, the Meetei's/Meitei's community is wrongly granted STs
Status then, this will adversely affect the existing tribal ST's in
employment and education where reservation for STs exists and that
the Meetei's /Meitei's community being dominant and advanced
politically, economically and educationally will grab majority of the ST
reserved seats;
(ii) Secondly most of the land in the hills are owned by the tribals,
however, the Meetei's/Meitei's community is determined to grab the
land of the tribals and if the Meetei's/Meitei's community gets ST
status then they will enter in the hill area in large numbers and they
will attempt to grab the land of the tribal. This attempt to grab the
land is also an attempt to grab the petroleum, Natural Gas, Chromite,
limestone and other minerals found in the hill areas which belong to
the tribals and as such, tribals will be adversely affected in respect of
ownerships of the Lands in the Hills;
(iii) Thirdly, 20 seats in Manipur Legislative Assembly are reserved for the
tribals in the hill areas and 40 seats for the Meetei's/Meitei's
community, if the Meetei's/Meitei's are given ST status being
dominant and numerous in population they will also begin to grab the
ST seats in the hills.
To sum up, the impugned order deserve to be quashed
because otherwise financially, educationally and every other way
dominant community will grab all the reserved posts and seats in
Page 5
employment and education and also political power will shift sharply
in favour of Meetei's/Meitei's and against the tribals and finally tribals
seats will be lost to the Meetei's/Meitei's hand.
[6] The Learned Senior counsel strenuously submitted that in the petition filed
before the Ld. Single Judge, the Respondents No. 1 to 8 herein has submitted that
Meetei community has been traditionally recognized as a tribe and that if the
applicants are not allowed to challenge the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge,
this falsehood will not be exposed and there will be no issue framed before the
Hon'ble High Court hearing the matter on the merits as to whether the
Meetei/Meitei community is a schedule tribe or not. It has also been submitted that
none of the documents referred to in para 5 onwards in the Writ Petition filed by
the Respondents No. 1-8 before the Hon'ble Single Judge, when carefully pursue,
says that Meetei community is a Schedule tribe. If the applicants are not granted
leave to file the writ appeal, the completely false declaration on facts made in the
petition will go unchallenged and injustice will be done.
[7] The learned senior counsel also submitted that the Meetei/Meitei
communities are not a tribe(s) and have never been recognized as a tribe(s). In
fact, they are very much an advanced community though some of them may come
within SC, OBC and that many Meeteis/Meiteis are today taking advantages of SC
and OBC caste certificates and it is not permissible in law for a community to claim
SC and OBC caste certificates and avail of that reservation and thereafter also seeks
ST certification.
[8] It has been submitted that a perusal of all the documents annexed with the
writ petition seeking to justify inclusion in the presidential order miserably failed to
show even a single line relating to backwardness and the documents do not
establish that the Meiteis were at any stage geographically isolated like Tribals and
that the Meeteis/Meiteis were associated with Kings and occupied special and
dominant position. The Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the clamour for
Page 6
ST status now is not based on backwardness but on the desire of the dominant
community to grab the reservation in employment and education available as well
as to enter the Hill areas which do not allow assess to non Tribals and grab the
tribal lands and that the High Court should not allow such mala-fide intentions to
fructify.
[9] The learned senior counsel further submitted that the Ld. Single Judge
cannot make an order to the State or Central Government to consider the
representations of the Meeteis/Meiteis as no materials have been submitted by the
Meeteis/Meiteis to the State or Central Government showing backwardness and
that if the materials submitted to the Court have not an iota of evidence relating to
the backwardness, then there is nothing for the State Government to consider and
therefore there was no reason for the Ld. Single Judge to direct the State or Central
Government to consider the representations.
[10] The learned senior counsel vehemently submitted that the Hon'ble Apex
Court has laid down the Principle of Law in the case of "State of Maharashtra
vs. Milind and Ors." reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4 that Courts cannot and should
not expand jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether a particular casts,
sub-casts, a group or part of tribe or sub-tribe is to be included as a scheduled tribe
in the presidential order. According to the learned senior counsel, the basic mistake
made by the Ld. Single Judge was in directing the State to make a recommendation
to the Central Government to include the Meeteis/Meiteis Community as a
scheduled tribe in the presidential list, the second mistake is the conclusion that
the issue of inclusion of the Meeteis/Meiteis was pending for nearly 10 (ten) years
and the third mistake was in concluding that the Meeteis/Meiteis are tribes. The
learned senior counsel accordingly submitted that unless leave as sought for by the
applicants is granted, they will be left without any remedy to challenge or rebut
this points and to redress their grievances.
Page 7
[11] By relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of "Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha vs. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd." reported in
(1970) (3) SCC 573, "Shanti Kumar R. Canji vs. The Home Insurance Co. of
New York" reported in (1974) 2 SCC 387 and "State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs.
Union of India & Ors." Reported in (1977) 3 SCC 592, it has been submitted by
the learned senior counsel that a person who is not a party to the writ petition can
prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate Court and such leave can be
granted if the person would be prejudicially affected by the judgment.
[12] Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. AG appearing for the State respondents
submitted that the judgment and order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Single
Judge cannot in any way affect the rights of the Tribals of Manipur as the judgment
and order merely directed the State Government to submit recommendation for
inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei community to the scheduled tribe list. It has been
submitted that the recommendation of the State Government is the pre-requisite
for initiating the process for inclusion in the scheduled tribe list as per the provisions
of Article 342 of the Constitution of India and that the process begins at the level
of the State Government or the Union Territories, with the Government or
Administration seeking the addition or inclusion of a particular community or
communities to the SC or ST list. It has also been submitted that the proposal to
include or remove any communities from the scheduled list is sent to the Union
Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs after examining the
proposal sent it to the Registrar General of India and if the Registrar General of
India approved the proposal, the same is sent to the National Commission for SC
or National Commission for ST and thereafter the proposal is sent back to the Union
Government, which after inter-Ministerial Deliberation, introduced it in the cabinet
for final approval. The learned Addl. AG submitted that the inclusion or exclusion
of any community in SC/ST list comes into effect only after the president gave
Page 8
ascent to the bill that amends the constitution (STs) order 1950 after it has been
passed by both the Lok Sabah and Rajya Sabha.
[13] Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. AG further submitted that taking into
consideration the lengthy process as mentioned hereinabove, it is very clear that
the applicants filed the present application without any legal basis and on mere
unfounded apprehension, simply to delay the execution of the judgment and order
dated 27.03.2023. It has also been submitted that in the present case, the
judgment and order of the Ld. Single Judge dated 27.03.2023 merely directed the
State Government to submit recommendation for initiating the process for inclusion
of the Meeteis/Meiteis in the ST list and not for inclusion of the Meeteis/Meiteis
Community in the presidential order by circumventing the constitutional provisions
and as such the writ appeal sought to be filed by the applicants are not maintainable
as there is no ground for filing the said appeal. The learned Add. AG accordingly
submitted that there is no ground or reason for granting leave to file third party
appeal against the judgment and order of the Ld. Single Judge and as such the
present application is liable to rejected.
In support of his contentions Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. AG cited the
following case Laws:- (i) "Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed & Ors." reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671 (Para 12, 13, 37-39, 48-
50), (ii) "Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors."
reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 (Para 9-13).
[14] Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.
1-8 submitted that the simple case of the private respondents No. 1-8 is that:-
(a) Inspite of having various records of the status of Meetei/Meitei
Community as Meetei/Meitei Tribes, the Meetei/Meitei Tribes had been left
out at the time of preparation of Schedule Tribes List under the Constitution
of India.
Page 9
(b) Thereafter, Meetei/Meitei Tribes approached the authorities concerned
since last so many years but failed to consider for initiation of process for
inclusion in the Schedule Tribes List under the Constitution of India.
(c) Finally, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of Manipur sent a Letter
dated 29/05/2013 to the State Government whereby requesting for
submission of recommendation from the State Government.
(d) Since last 10 (ten) years, the letter dated 29/05/2013 has been lying at
the Office of the State Government without any attention.
(e) Thereafter, the Private Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 have no alternative
except to ventilate their grievance through Hon'ble High Court of Manipur
under Art 226 of the Constitution of India.
(f) The Private Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 prayed as many as 8 (eight) prayers
but considering legal impediment of the other players and also considering
the consent of the parties who is going to send the recommendation in reply
to the Letter dated 29/05/2013, the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon'ble Court
was pleased to pass the Judgment and order dated 27/03/2023.
(g) The Ld. Single Judge of the Hon'ble Court simply directed to send the
recommendation in reply to the Letter dated 29/05/2013 as the same was
pending since last 10 (ten) years and the words "recommendation" is a
technical terms which is mentioned by the Government of India in its
procedure for inclusion or exclusion of the Tribes status in the list of
Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution of India.
(h)The case of the Private Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 is nothing but to complete
the process from the side of the State Government and let the authority
concerned decide on its merits either for inclusion or rejection.
The learned senior counsel submitted that in view of the above facts of the
case, it is made clear that no rights or interests of the applicants have been
adversely affected or jeopardized by the judgment and order of the Ld. Single
Judge.
Page 10
[15] Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel submitted that after the
inclusion of the 34 (thirty four) Tribes of Manipur in the list of scheduled Tribes
under the constitution of India, many other Community in India have also been
included in the list of scheduled Tribes under the Constitution of India and in such
cases, the applicants never objected by saying that they are aggrieved, however,
only when the Meetei/Meitei Community approached the authority by demanding
their legitimate rights, the applicants raised objection by saying that they are
aggrieved parties, which is not acceptable at all. The learned senior counsel
submitted that there is no iota of truth in the claim made by the applicants that the
Tribals are the owners of the lands and natural resources in the Hill areas of
Manipur.
In fact, the State Government is the real owner of the lands in the Hill areas
of Manipur and the Union of India is the sole owner of all natural resources like
petroleum, natural gas, chromite, lime stone and other minerals, which are found
in the soil of India. Accordingly, the grievances raised by the applicants are without
any basis and cannot be accepted.
[16] The learned senior counsel further submitted that the applicants have failed
to demonstrate how any of their rights have been affected by the directions given
by the Ld. Single Judge and how the process for inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei
Community in the scheduled Tribe list directly or indirectly affects their rights in
any way and as such the applicants are not aggrieved party in the present case
and the present application is wholly misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of
law.
In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel cited the following
case laws:-
(i) "Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Manipur & Ors"
reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 (Para 9-11).
Page 11
(ii) "Ashok Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors."
Reported in (2018) 9 SCC 723 (Para 3-5).
(iii) "V.N. Krishna Murthy & Anr. Vs. Ravikumar & Anr." reported in
(2020) 9 SCC 501 (Para 15-23).
(iv) "My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society vs. B
Mahesh & Ors." reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 698 (Para 30).
[17] We have hard at length, the rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and also examined the materials available on
record. Even though, the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties are only in respect of the present application for granting leave to file third
party appeal, the learned counsel have addressed this Court extensively with regard
to the merit of the case also.
In view of the nature of the arguments and counter arguments advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties touching extensively upon the merits
of the case, we are of the view that it will be just and proper to consider the
connected appeal on merit for a just and proper adjudication of the issues raised
by the learned counsel appearing for the parties after examining the materials
available in the record of the connected writ appeal.
[18] In the case of "A. Subash Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh" reported
in (2011) 7 SCC 616, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 25 of
the judgment that the expression 'aggrieved person' denotes an elastic and an
elusive concept and that it cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact
and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable
factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which the contravention is
alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the
complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury
suffered by the complainant.
Page 12
[19] In the present case, the main grievance raised by the applicants is that they
will be prejudicially affected if they are not given a chance to have a say or to raise
objection in the matter of granting STs status to the Meetei/Meitei Community and
that their rights and interests will be prejudicially affected unless they are given an
opportunity to challenge the judgment and order passed by the Ld. Single Judge
by filing a writ appeal and that they will be precluded from attacking the correctness
in granting STs status to the Meetei/Meitei Community in other proceedings.
Taking into consideration the nature of the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties which needs to be examined and decided
on the basis of the materials available in the connected writ appeal and writ petition
and taking into consideration the nature of the grievances raised by the applicants,
we are inclined to grant leave sought by the applicants in the present application.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
Registry is directed to number the connected writ appeal and list it for
admission hearing if the same is otherwise found to be in order.
With the aforesaid directions, the present application is disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Sapana
FR/NFR
Page 13
