Manipur High Court
Petitioners vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 21 February, 2024
KHOIROM Digitally signed by
KHOIROM
BIPINCHANDR BIPINCHANDRA SINGH
Date: 2024.02.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
A SINGH 12:08:26 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
REVIEW PETITION No. 12 of 2023
[Ref. : W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023]
1. Shri Mutum Churamani Meetei aged about 62 years S/o Late
M. Iboton Meetei of Kabo Leikai Dewlaland, 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 Laiom 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 Keishamthong Laisom
Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur -
795001 who is the 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 Elangband Baburam aged about 76 years S/o (L) E.
Leipakmacha Singh of Keirak Khongnang Leikai, P.S.
Kakching B.P.O. Kakching District - Kakching, Manipur who
is the Member of the Meetei (Meitei) Tribe Union being
Regd. No. 15 of 2022.
6. Shri Thiyam Somendro 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 Meetei (Meitei) Tribe
Union being Regd. No. 15 of 2022.
.... Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur and its Office at Babupara, Old
Secretariat Complex, Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 1
2. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Manipur and
its Office at Old Secretariat Complex, Imphal, Manipur -
795 001.
3. The Secretary, Tribal Affairs and Hills Department and its
Office at Old Secretariat Complex, Imphal, Manipur.
4. The Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of
India, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi - 110 001.
.... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU
For the petitioners : Mr. M. Hemchandra, Senior Advocate
Mr. N. Jotendro, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ajoy Pebam, Advocate
Mr. M. Rendy, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. M. Rarry, Special State Counsel
Mr. Kh. Samarjit, DSGI
Date of hearing : 21.12.2023
Date of judgment & order : 21.02.2024
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners, Mr. M. Rarry, learned Special State counsel appearing for
the State respondents and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DGSI appearing for the
Union of India.
[2] The present review petition has been filed under Chapter - X of
the Rules of the High Court of Manipur read with Article 215 of the
Constitution of India and Order XLVII R. 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
seeking review of the Para of 17 (iii) of the judgment & order dated
27.03.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023, with the
following prayer :
"(a) To admit this Review Petition.
(b) To call for record.
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 2
(c) To review the Para No. 17 (iii) of the judgment & order dated
27.03.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023
and allow the modification of the direction made in Para No.
17 (iii) of the said judgment."
[3] Brief facts of the petitioners' case:
The Meetei/Meitei is one of the indigenous tribes among the
ethnic tribes of Manipur. The Manipur was an independent sovereignty
country and Manipur was conquered by the British on 27th April, 1891.
Thereafter, the region saw two kings only - Maharaja Churachand Singh
(1891 - 1941 AD) and Maharaja Budhachandra Singh (1941 - 1949 AD).
India got independence on 15th August, 1947 from British
colonial Rule and prior to India, Manipur got independence on 14 th August,
1947 and on 21st September, 1949 Maharaja Bodhachandra, Private
Secretary Sanasam Gourahari Singh and ADC Mayengbam Anand Mohan
Singh formally signed the Manipur Merger Agreement. On 15th October,
1949, the Government of India officially announced that Manipur became a
part of India. In the Manipur Merger agreement, 1949, the Government of
India undertook certain terms and conditions for preserving various laws,
customs and conventions prevailing in the State pertaining to the socio
economic and religious life of the people. In the present case, earlier before
the Merger Agreement, all Manipur people are the Tribe but Meetei/Meitei
community was left out while preparation of list of Scheduled Tribes under
the Indian Union.
The status of Meetei/Meitei Community before execution of the
Merger Agreement on 21.09.1949 as a "Tribe among Tribes of Manipur"
should be maintained by including the Meetei/Meitei community in the list of
Schedule Tribe under the Constitution of India as the Article VIII of the
Merger Agreement dated 21.09.1949 executed between the Maharaja of
Manipur and Government of India. The Meetei/Meitei of Manipur has lost the
identity of the Tribe while merging with the Union of India on September 21,
1949 and earlier Manipur was simple classless tribal society. However, at the
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 3
time of merging the Manipur with the Indian Union, 29 (twenty nine)
communities of Manipur have been included in the Scheduled Tribe List of
Indian Union and thereafter, as per the order dated 26.05.2003 of the
Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench passed in W.P.(C) No. 4281 of
2002, Chongthu, Khoibu and Mate have been included in the list of Schedule
Tribes. Accordingly, now there are 34 (thirty four) numbers of tribal
community of Manipur was included in the list of schedule tribe of the Indian
Constitution, but Meetei/Meitei Tribe was left out.
As per Article 342(1) and 366 (19, 23, 25) of the Indian
Constitution, the Meetei/Meitei community should be restored the Tribe
Status by recognizing as a tribe/tribal community by issuing presidential
order after completing procedure and modalities prescribed by the
Government of India as the Meetei/Meitei are still tribe but status of Meitei
community was left out while preparation of scheduled tribe lists.
Meetei/Meitei tribe union and other organization have been
demanding by submitting various representations to the Union of India as
well as the Government of Manipur. Considering grievances of the people of
Manipur, the Government of India, Ministry of Tri bal Affairs wrote a letter
No. 1902005/2012-C&IM dated 29.05.2013 to the Government of Manipur in
reply to the representation submitted by Scheduled Tribe Demand
Committee whereby requesting for specific recommendations along with
latest socio-economic survey and ethnographic report. Inspite of the letter
dated 29.05.2013, the Government of Manipur failed to submit the
recommendation till date.
Meetei/Meitei Tribe Union has also submitted a representation
to the Union of India and in reply to the representation submitted by the
petitioners' union, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India wrote a
letter No. 12/78/2020-SS dated 20.05.2022 whereby forwarding the
representation dated 18.04.2022 to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government
of India for further necessary action.
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 4
Accordingly, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India
also wrote a letter being No. 12026/09/2013-C&LM dated 31.05.2022 to the
Government of Manipur (Home Department). But, the State Government
failed to take up the necessary action for submission of the recommendation
till date.
The petitioners beg to submit that as per the procedure of the
Government of India for inclusion in or exclusion from the list of Scheduled
Tribes, it has provided the following process:
"Whenever representations are received in the Ministry for
inclusion/exclusion of any community in/from the list of Scheduled
Tribes of a State/UT, the Ministry forwards that representation to the
concerned State Government/U.T. administration for
recommendation as per the modalities. If the concerned State
Government/UT recommends the proposal, then the same is sent to
the Registrar General of India (RGI), if satisfied with the
recommendation of the State Government/UT, recommends the
proposal to the Central Government. Thereafter, the Government
refers the proposal to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes
for their recommendations. If the National Commission for Scheduled
Tribes also recommends the case, the matter is processed for the
decision of the Cabinet. Thereafter, the matter is put up before the
Parliament in the form of a Bill to amend the Presidential Orders."
[4] The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the
present case of the petitioners is to complete the process which is pending
before the State Government for the last 10 (ten) years without any
explanation but inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei Community is to be decided by
the competent authority after following due process of law.
Being aggrieved by the acts of the State Government, the
petitioners are compelled to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 229 of
2023 which was decided vide order dated 27.03.2023 and the order reads as
follows:
"17. In the result,
(i) The writ petition is disposed of.
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 5
(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 of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order in terms of the
averments set out in the writ petition and in the line of
the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 4281 of 2002 dated
26.05.2003 by the Gauhati High Court."
Thereafter, All Manipur Tribal Union & 4 (four) others filed a
third party appeal before the Ld. Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court
with a leave application being M.C.(W.A.) No. 88 of 2023 and the said
application was allowed vide order dated 19.10.2023.
The Chairman, Hill Area Committee (HAC) of the Manipur
Legislative Assembly, Manipur namely, Dinganglung Gangmei approached
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging the judgment & order dated
27.03.2023 of the Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court of Manipur by filing
Special Leave Application (SLP) No. 19206 of 2023.
While pending the SLP being No. 19206 of 2023 before the
Hon'ble Apex Court, the State respondents filed an application being
M.C.[W.P.(C)] No. 150 of 2023 seeking extension of time limit for a further
period of 1 (one) year for consideration of the Hon'ble Single Judge's
direction made at Para No. 17 (iii) of the judgment and order dated
27.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023. Thereafter, after hearing the
parties, this Court passed an order dated 09.05.2023 in M.C.[W.P.(C)] No.
150 of 2023 as follows:
"11. In the result,
(i) M.C. (WP) No. 150 of 2023 is allowed.
(ii) Time for consideration of the direction made at
direction No. (iii) of the order dated 27.03.2023
passed in W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023 is extended for a
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 6
period of one year from the date of order in W.P.(C)
No. 229 of 2023 dated 27.03.2023."
The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to take up the said SLP on
17.05.2023 and after hearing the parties, passed an order dated 17.05.2023
in the SLP No. 19206 of 2023 as under:
".......................................................
4. Mr. Colin Gonslaves, senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that the direction which was issued by the
Single Jude in the order dated 27 March, 2023 is contrary to the
settled position of law which has been expounded by a Constitution
Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra -Vs- Milind & Ors.
5. Since the Writ Appeal is pending before the Division Bench,
we leave it open to the parties who are aggrieved by the order of the
Single Judge to make appropriate submissions before the Division
Bench in that regard.
6. Any Party aggrieved by an order passed by the Division Bench
of the Writ Appeal would be liberty to pursue its rights and remedies
before this Court."
The learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M.
Hemchandra submits that even though the liberty is granted to the petitioner
of the SLP No. 19206 of 2023 to approach the Ld. Division Bench of this
Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the said SLP submitted
before the Hon'ble Apex Court by relying on the Para No. 15 of a Constitution
Bench which is cited as "(2001) 1 SCC 4, State of Maharashtra -Vs- Milind
& Ors." wherein the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court was
pleased to hold that :
"15. Thus, it is clear that States have no power to amend
Presidential Orders. Consequently, a party in power or the
Government of the day in a State is relieved from the pressure or
burden of tinkering with the Presidential Orders either to gain
popularity or secure votes. Number of persons in order to gain
advantage in securing admissions in educational institutions and
employment in State Services have been claiming as belonging to
either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes depriving genuine and
needy persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 7
covered by the Presidential Orders, defeating and frustrating to a
large extent the very object of protective discrimination given to such
people based on their educational and social backwardness. Courts
cannot and should not expand jurisdiction to deal with the
question as to whether a particular caste, sub-caste; a group
or part of tribe or sub-tribe is included in any one of the
Entries mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under
Article 341 and 342 particularly so when in Clause (2) of the
said Article, it is expressly stated that said orders cannot be
amended or varied except by law made by Parliament. The
power to include or exclude, amend or alter Presidential Order is
expressly and exclusively conferred on and vested with the
Parliament and that too by making a law in that regard. The
President had the benefit of consulting States through Governors of
States which had the means and machinery to find out and
recommend as to whether a particular caste or tribe was to be
included in the Presidential Order. If the said Orders are to be
amended it is the Parliament that is in a better position to know
having means and machinery unlike Courts as to why a particular
caste or tribe is to be included or excluded by law to be made by
Parliament. Allowing the State Governments or Courts or other
authorities or tribunals to hold enquiry as to whether a particular
caste or tribe should be considered as one included in the Schedule
of the Presidential Order, when it is not so specifically included, may
lead to problems. In order to gain advantage of reservations for the
purpose of Article 15(4) or 16(4) several persons have been coming
forward claiming to be covered by Presidential Orders issued under
Article 341 and 342. This apart when no other authority other than
the Parliament, that too by law alone can amend the Presidential
Orders, neither the State Government nor the Courts nor tribunals
nor any authority can assume jurisdiction to hold enquiry and take
evidence to declare that a caste or a tribe or part of or a group within
a caste or tribe is included in Presidential Orders in one Entry or the
other although they are not expressly and specifically included. A
Court cannot alter or amend the said Presidential Orders for the very
good reason that it has no power to do so within the meaning,
content and scope of Article 341 and 342. It is not possible to hold
that either any enquiry is permissible or any evidence can be let in, in
relation to a particular caste or tribe to say whether it is included
within Presidential Orders when it is not so expressly included."
Further, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
submitted that during the course of hearing of the said SLP, the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to feel that the direction made at Para No. 17 (iii) of
the judgment and order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Single
Judge is against the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 8
The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that as
aggrieved by the said innocuous direction given at Para No. 17(iii), the
present review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC and the
same is extracted herein below:
"1. Application for review of petition:
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved -
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is
allowed.
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is
allowed or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes.
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not
within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the
time when the decree was passed or order made, or an
account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a
review of the decree passed or order made against him, may
apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the
decree or made the order.
2. A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency
of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of
such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or
when; being respondent, he can present to the Appellate
Court the case on which he applies for the review.
[Explanation - The fact that the decision on a question of law
on which the judgment of the Court is based has been
reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a Superior
Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review
of such judgment.]"
The learned senior counsel further submits that the judgment
and order dated 27.03.2023 of the Single Judge is an innocuous order and
the petitioners have not filed any appeal against it and moreover, the
petitioners have no right to appeal as the same is passed by consent of both
parties.
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 9
Further, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the petitioners have discovered this point regarding direction
made in Para No. 17(iii) barred by the judgment of Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above.
Further, the learned senior counsel submits that Para No. 17
(iii) of the judgment is a simple direction for consideration as agreed by the
parties but due to technically very delicate in nature, the petitioners
approach this Court for modification/review by filing the present review
petition.
[5] The grounds for review of the aforementioned Para No. 17(iii)
are as follows:
(i) The words i.e. ".............. for inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei
community in the Scheduled Tribe List ..........." of the direction No.
17 (iii) of the judgment and order dated 27.03.2023 are little bit
confusion with the judgment laid down by the Constitution Bench of
the Hon'ble Apex Court as the Hon'ble Apex Court felt thinks that the
said direction is direct direction for inclusion of a particular
community. As such, it is required to be modified as "The first
respondent shall consider the case of the petitioners by sending
recommendation which would be in the wisdom of realm of the
State Government in reply to the Letter dated 29.05.2013 of the
Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, expeditiously
preferably within a period of one year from the date of order in
W.P.(C) no. 229 of 2023 dated 27.03.2023 in terms of the
averments set out in the writ petition and in the line of the order
passed in W.P.(C) No. 4281 of 2002 dated 26.05.2003 by the
Gauhati High Court."
(ii) As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court held in
"(2001) 1 SCC 4, State of Maharashtra -vs- Milind and
Others" that the Courts cannot and should not expand jurisdiction to
deal with the question as to whether a particular case, sub-caste; a
group or part of tribe or sub-tribe is included in any one of the
Entries mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341
and 342 particularly so when in Clause (2) of the said Article, it is
expressly stated that said orders cannot be amended or varied except
by law made by Parliament. The Hon'ble Apex Court felt that the said
direction made in Para No. 17(iii) of the judgment is not in
consonance with the decision of this High Court.
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 10
(iii) The Para No. 17(iii) of the judgment dated 27.03.2023 of this
Court was passed in a misconception of law as the petitioners failed
to assist the Court properly at the time of hearing of the said writ
petition due to his misconception of fact and law.
(iv) The language in the direction made in Para No. 17(iii) of the
judgment dated 27.03.2023 is required to be modified in view of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as the same is not in
consonance with the decision of the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
[6] The learned senior counsel relying on the judgment & order
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Board of Control for Cricket in India
& Anr. -Vs- Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 741], the relevant
paras are reproduced as under :
"89. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application
for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not
only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or
when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but
also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for
any other sufficient reason.
90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the Court which would include
a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review
of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if
there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute
sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the
case. The words "sufficient reason" in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code
are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court
or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated
by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem
gravabit".
[7] The relevant Para mentioned in the judgment passed in
W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023 is reproduced herein below:
"17 (iii) . The first respondent shall consider the case of the
petitioners for inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei for inclusion of the
Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list, expeditiously,
preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order in terms of the averments set out in the writ
petition and in the line of the order passed in WP(C) No. 4281 of
2002 dated 26.05.2003 b the Gauahti High Court."
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 11
[8] For better appreciation in deciding the matter, Article 342 of
the Constitution of India is reproduced herein below:
"342. Scheduled Tribes -
(1) The President may with respect to any State (or Union
Territory), and where it is a State, after consultation with the
Governor, thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or
tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal
communities which shall for the purpose of this Constitution
be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State (or
Union Territory, as the case may be).
(2) Parliament may include in or exclude from the list of
Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under
clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of group
within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a
notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by
any subsequent notification."
[9] After going through the above mentioned Para of Article 342, it
is evident and clear that the recommendation is of institutional
recommendation in nature, but not an individual recommendation.
[10] The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further pointed
out points for determination of the issue as under:
(i) The Para No. 17(iii) of the direction passed by this Court
in the order dated 27.03.2023 for inclusion of a
particular community in the Scheduled Tribe List is a
little bit confusion with the judgment laid down by the
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court.
(ii) As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court held in
(2001) 1 SCC 4, State of Maharashtra V. Milind & Ors.
the Courts cannot or should not expand the jurisdiction
to deal with the issue for inclusion of a particular case,
sub-caste; a group or part of tribe or sub-tribe in any
one of the entries mentioned in Presidential Orders
issued under Article 341 and 342, the orders cannot be
amended or varied except by law made by Parliament.
(iii) The Para No. 17(iii) of the direction is due to
misconception of fact and law.
(iv) The language mentioned in the direction aforementioned
is required to be modified since the same is not in
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 12
consonance with the decision of the Constitution Bench
of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
[11] Having regard to the above mentioned factual position, it would
be apposite to distillate the core aspects of the Clause (g) of the Annual
Report, 2013 - 14 of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India and
the same is reproduced as under:
"(g) Procedure for inclusion or exclusion from, the list of
Scheduled Tribes.
In June, 1999 further revised on 25.06.2002, the Government
approved modalities for deciding claims for inclusion in, or exclusion
from and other modification in the orders specifying the lists of
Scheduled Tribes. According to these modalities, only those claims
that have been agreed to by the concerned State Government/UT
Administration, the Registrar General of India (RGI) and the National
Commission for Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (now National
Commission for Scheduled Tribes) (NCST) will be taken up for
consideration. Whenever representations are received in the Ministry
for inclusion/exclusion of any community in/from the list of Scheduled
Tribes of a State/UT, the Ministry forwards that representation to the
concerned State Government/U.T. Administration for
recommendation as per the modalities. If the concerned State
Government/UT recommends the proposal, then the same is sent to
the Registrar General of India (RGI). The RGI, if satisfied with the
recommendation of the State Government/UT, recommends the
proposal to the Central Government. Thereafter, the Government
refers the proposal to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes
for their recommendation. If the National Commission for Scheduled
Tribes also recommends the case, the matter is processed for the
decision of the Cabinet. Thereafter, the matter is put up before the
Parliament in the form of a Bill to amend the Presidential Order."
[12] The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further has
drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati
High Court passed an order dated 26.05.2003 in W.P.(C) No. 4281 of 2002 of
which, the learned Single Judge relied upon and passed the above direction
at Para No. 17(iii) and the same reads as thus:
"Heard Dr. N.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and
also heard Mr. K. Kumar, learned Additional C.G.S.C. appearing on
behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 as well as Mr. Kh. Babul Chandra,
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 13
learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents 5
and 6.
The limited grievance of the writ petitioners in this writ
petition is that pursuant to the proposal of the Government of India
to revise the list of Scheduled Tribes of the States and Union
Territories after 50 years of the functioning of the Constitution in
terms of Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, the Govt. of
Manipur vide communications dated 31.12.99 and 3.1.2001
recommended 5 (five) Tribes namely, Inpui, Liangmai, Rongmai,
Thangal and Zeme for modification in the existing entry with 3
(three) other Tribes namely, Chengthu, Keibu and Mete were
proposed to inclusion as new Tribes. But despite such
recommendation of the Govt. of Manipur, all the 8 (eight) Tribes - 5
(five) Tribes for modification and 3 (three) Tribes for inclusion in the
list of Scheduled Tribes as noticed above, have been left out of
consideration by the competent authority.
The respondents mainly respondents 1 to 4 contested this
writ petition by filing the affidavit-in-opposition. In paragraph 10 - 11
of the said affidavit-in-opposition it is stated that the proposal for
modification/inclusion of the 8(eight) Tribes has not been left out of
consideration and the consideration of the same is under process. It
is also averred by the contesting respondents that after examination,
if the 8 (eight) communities are found to be eligible, necessary
amendments in the order specifying the list of Scheduled Tribes of
Manipur would be carried out in terms of the provisions of Articles
342 of the Constitution.
Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition, being
relevant, are reproduced as under:
"10. That, with regard to the statements made in para 8 of
the writ petition the deponent denies the correctness of the
same, the proposals of five communities namely, Inpui,
Liangmai, Rongmai, Thangal and Zeme for modifications in
the existing entries of the list of Scheduled Tribes and cases
of three tribes namely Chongthu, Koibu, and Mate for fresh
inclusion are being processed as per the approval modalities.
Thus, the averments of the petitioners that the case of the
above referred eight communities has been left out of
consideration is not correct. Their requests are under
examination.
11. That, as regard to the statements made in para 9 of
the writ petition the deponent begs to submit that the
proposals of 8 communities are under consideration of the
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 14
Government and they are being processed as per approved
modalities. If after examination they are found eligible,
necessary amendments in the order specifying the list of
Scheduled Tribes of Manipur would be carried out as per
provisions of Article 342 of the Constitution of India."
In view of the above referred statements made by the
respondents and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a
direction that the respondents 1 to 4 shall consider the case of the
petitioners expeditiously in terms of the averments made in the said
paragraphs as alluded above.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach this
Court if they are still aggrieved by any decision taken by the
respondents 1 to 4 in this regard.
A copy of the affidavit-in-opposition as produced by the
respondents 1 - 4 be kept as to form part of the record.
This disposes of the writ petition."
[13] And accordingly, the learned Single Judge passed the order
dated 27.03.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 229 of 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 of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order in terms of the
averments set out in the writ petition and in the line of
the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 4281 of 2002 dated
26.05.2003 by the Gauhati High Court."
[14] The order passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court as
reproduced above cannot be relied upon in view of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court's Constitution Bench order passed in State of Maharashtra -Vs- Milind
& Ors. "(2001) 1 SCC 4".
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 15
[15] Before proceeding further, it will be convenient to know the
contents of the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 19206 of 2023 and the
operative portion of the same is reproduced herein below:
"1. .....................................................................................................
2. Besides the above aspects, the State of Manipur has adverted
to two developments which have taken place before the High Court:
(i) A Writ Appeal, MC(WA) No. 88 of 2023, has been filed
by the Manipur Tribal Union and others against the
judgment dated 27 March, 2023 of a Single Judge of
the High Court of Manipur (Justice M.V. Muralidaran).
The Writ Appeal has been entertained by a Division
Bench of the High Court on 15 May 2023. While
issuing notice, the writ appeal has been directed to be
listed on 6 June, 2023; and
(ii) An application was moved by the State of Manipur
before the Single Judge who passed the order dated
27 March, 2023 for extension of time on which the
Single Judge has directed that time for considering
direction (iii) in the order dated 27 March, 2023 shall
stand extended by a period of one year.
3. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India states that having
due regard to the sensitive law and order situation which
emerged in the State, the State Government, at this stage,
had moved the Single Judge for extension of time by a period
one year so that the situation can normalize in the meantime.
4. Mr. Colin Gonslaves, senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that the direction which was issued by
the Single Judge in the order dated 27 March, 2023 is
contrary to the settled position of law which has been
expounded by a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors.
5. Since the Writ Appeal is pending before the Division Bench,
we leave it open to the parties who are aggrieved by the
order of the Single Judge to make appropriate submissions
before the Division Bench in that regard.
6. Any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Division Bench
in the Writ Appeal would be at liberty to pursue its rights and
remedies before this Court.
13. ..................................................................................................."
[16] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Maharashtra V. Milind
& Ors. [(2001) 1 SCC 4]" held that :
"15. Thus, it is clear that States have no power to amend
Presidential Orders. Consequently, a party in power or the
Government of the day in a State is relieved from the pressure or
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 16
burden of tinkering with the Presidential Orders either to gain
popularity or secure votes. Number of persons in order to gain
advantage in securing admissions in educational institutions and
employment in State Services have been claiming as belonging to
either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes depriving genuine and
needy persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
covered by the Presidential Orders, defeating and frustrating to a
large extent the very object of protective discrimination given to such
people based on their educational and social backwardness. Courts
cannot and should not expand jurisdiction to deal with the
question as to whether a particular caste, sub-caste; a group
or part of tribe or sub-tribe is included in any one of the
Entries mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under
Article 341 and 342 particularly so when in Clause (2) of the
said Article, it is expressly stated that said orders cannot be
amended or varied except by law made by Parliament. The
power to include or exclude, amend or alter Presidential Order is
expressly and exclusively conferred on and vested with the
Parliament and that too by making a law in that regard. The
President had the benefit of consulting States through Governors of
States which had the means and machinery to find out and
recommend as to whether a particular caste or tribe was to be
included in the Presidential Order. If the said Orders are to be
amended it is the Parliament that is in a better position to know
having means and machinery unlike Courts as to why a particular
caste or tribe is to be included or excluded by law to be made by
Parliament. Allowing the State Governments or Courts or other
authorities or tribunals to hold enquiry as to whether a particular
caste or tribe should be considered as one included in the Schedule
of the Presidential Order, when it is not so specifically included, may
lead to problems. In order to gain advantage of reservations for the
purpose of Article 15(4) or 16(4) several persons have been coming
forward claiming to be covered by Presidential Orders issued under
Article 341 and 342. This apart when no other authority other than
the Parliament, that too by law alone can amend the Presidential
Orders, neither the State Government nor the Courts nor tribunals
nor any authority can assume jurisdiction to hold enquiry and take
evidence to declare that a caste or a tribe or part of or a group within
a caste or tribe is included in Presidential Orders in one Entry or the
other although they are not expressly and specifically included. A
Court cannot alter or amend the said Presidential Orders for the very
good reason that it has no power to do so within the meaning,
content and scope of Article 341 and 342. It is not possible to hold
that either any enquiry is permissible or any evidence can be let in, in
relation to a particular caste or tribe to say whether it is included
within Presidential Orders when it is not so expressly included."
[17] The petitioners herein filed M.C.(Rev. Petn.) No. 11 of 2023,
wherein praying for condonation of delay of 47 (forty seven) days in filing
the present review petition and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 17
15.06.2023 allowed the petition and condoned the delay of 47 (forty seven)
days.
[18] The Tribal Youth Volunteers Organization and All Tribal
Disabled Union filed an application to implead them as party respondents in
the present review petition. However, this Court, vide order dated
03.10.2023, dismissed the said application and the same is reproduced
herein below:
"16. As stated supra, the applicants themselves admitted that the
second applicant and others have filed an appeal against the order
dated 27.03.2023 passed in the writ petition. Once they have invoked
the appellate jurisdiction by filing an appeal, the applicants have no
right to seek impleadment in the review application filed by the
original writ petitioners. Since the applicants have no right to seek
the relief for impleadment in Review Application No. 12 of 2023, this
Court is of the view that the present petition is liable to be
dismissed."
[19] The Tribal Youth Volunteers Oranisation represented by its
Chairman, Mr. Chuimei and Hmar Students' Association, Joint Head Quarters
Delhi represented by its Central Executive Committee, Mr. Robullien
Khawbung filed M.C.(Rev. Petn.) No. 14 of 2023 praying for grant of leave to
file third party review against the judgment and order dated 27.03.2023
passed in Review Petition (C) No. 229 of 2023 and M.C.(Rev. Petn.) No. 15
of 2023 for condonation of unintentional delay of 65 (sixty five) days in filing
review petition. However, on the prayer made by Mr. Colin Gonslave, learned
senior counsel for the applicant in M.C. (Rev. Petn.) No. 14 of 2023 and
M.C.(Rev. Petn.) No. 15 of 2023 and the petitioners in un-numbered review
petition requested the Court to allow to withdraw the said two miscellaneous
applications on the instructions from the applicants, this Court vide order
dated 16.09.2023 permitted to withdraw the said two miscellaneous
applications along with the un-numbered review petition.
[20] The learned Special State Counsel for the respondent No. 1 to
3, Mr. M. Rarry and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI representing the
respondent No. 4, the Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of
India submit that they are not going to file counter affidavit and further,
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 18
submit that they have nothing to say as they have not received any
instructions from their concerned authority.
[21] On careful perusal of Chapter-X of the High Court of Manipur
Rules, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Order 47 Rule 1
of the CPC, 1908 with the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made
in (2005) 4 SCC 741 and on perusal of the submissions made above by the
learned senior counsel, the present review petition filed by the present
petitioners is maintainable.
[22] After joint perusal of the procedure laid down by the
Government of India for inclusion in or exclusion from the list of Scheduled
Tribe issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India in Clause (g) of the
Annual Report, 2013-14 of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India
which has been also reproduced herein above and observation made by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V.
Milind & Ors. [(2001) 1 SCC 4], I am satisfied and of the view that the
direction given at Para No. 17(iii) of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated
27.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 229 of the 2023 which is impugned herein
needs to be reviewed, as the direction given at Para No. 17(iii) of the Hon'ble
Single Judge is against the observation made in the Constitution Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
[23] Accordingly, the direction given at Para No. 17(iii) needs to be
deleted and is ordered accordingly for deletion of the Para No. 17(iii) of the
judgment and order dated 27.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023.
[24] With this finding and direction, this review petition is disposed
of.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Bipin
Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 Page 19
