http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: DADAJI ALIAS DINA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUKHDEOBABU & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/11/1979

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) TULZAPURKAR, V.D.

CITATION:  1980 AIR  150            1980 SCR  (1)1135  1980 SCC  (1) 621  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1982 SC 149  (250)

ACT:      Representation   of    People   Act   1951-Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)  Order, 1950  read  as  "Gond  including" certain tribes-Amendment  made in  1976 omitted  "including" and added  "Mana" as  a tribe  having affinity with "Gonds"- Omission of  "including" if  means any  "Mana" community not having  affinity   with  "Gonds"-Kshatriya   Bidwaik   Mana" community, if a Scheduled Tribe.

HEADNOTE:      Entry 12 of Part IX of the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 prior to its amendment in 1956 read as  "Gond including  Media (Maria) and Mudia, (Muria)". By the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act 63 of  1956 the  said Entry  was substituted  by Entry 12 in Paragraph 5  of Part  VII-A of the Schedule to the Order. It read as  "12 Gond,  including:  Arakh  or  Arrah...Mana...." "Mana"  was  the  30th  community  amongst  the  communities included in  that Entry.  In 1976 the entire Schedule to the order as  it stood prior to the amendment was substituted by a new  Schedule. Entry  18 of  Part IX  of the  new Schedule corresponding to  Entry 12,  prior to  the amendment, showed ’Mana’ community  as one  of the communities included in the group of communities headed by "Gond" community.      In the election to the State Assembly held in February, 1978  the   appellant  was   declared  successful   from   a constituency reserved  for Scheduled Tribes. In his election petition impugning the appellant’s election respondent no. 1 who was  the unsuccessful  candidate challenged the election on the  ground that  the appellant  did not belong to any of the Scheduled Tribes specified in Part IX of the Schedule to the 1950  Order as  it stood at the time of the election and was therefore  not qualified  to be  chosen to fill the seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes.      The High Court set aside the appellant’s election.      In appeal  to this  Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that while the word "including" in Entry 12 of the 1950  Order as  it stood  after its  amendment  in  1956 showed that  the communities  referred to therein were those having affinity  with the  Gond Tribe  and its  omission  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Entry 18  as amended  in  1976  showed  that  the  group  of communities mentioned in this Entry, need not necessarily be those having  mutual affinity  amongst them so that a person belonging to  any "Mana"  community should  be treated  as a person belonging  to a Scheduled Tribe even though it had no affinity with the "Gond" tribe.      Dismissing the appeal ^      HELD: 1.  The High Court was right in setting aside the appellant’s election on the ground that he did not belong to a Schedule Tribe. [1147 B] 1136      2. (a)  Even when  the Order,  before its  amendment in 1976  used   the  term  "including",  this  Court  giving  a restricted  meaning   to  "Mana",   held  that  only  ’Mana’ community which had affinity with the ’Gond’ community could be considered  as a  Scheduled  Tribe  and  that  ’Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana’  community to  which  the  appellant  belonged could not be treated as a Scheduled Tribe. [1143F-G]      (b) A  reading of  Part IX of the Schedule to the Order shows that  certain communities  had been  grouped  together under a  single Entry  in the  light of  Article 342  of the Constitution which  requires part  of  or  groups  within  a tribal  community   also  to  be  specified  in  the  Order. Therefore the  communities mentioned  against  any  specific Entry are  those which  have mutual  affinity amongst  them. [1144C-E]      (c) Merely  because a new Schedule had been substituted for the  old one  it cannot  be  said  that  Parliament  had intended to  treat persons  belonging to  "Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana" community  also as  a Scheduled Tribe. Where there are two communities  with the same name one having affinity with a tribe  and the other not having anything to do with it and both are  treated as  Scheduled Tribes,  the community which has affinity  with another  tribe is  shown along with it in the same group against a single Entry and the other is shown against a  different Entry.  Therefore  the  Mana  community included in  Entry 18  can only  be that  which has affinity with ’Gonds’  and any  other community  which also bears the name ’Mana’  but does  not have  any such affinity cannot be deemed to  fall within  the scope  of ’Mana’  in  Entry  18. [1144H, 1145C-D]      3.  The   term  "including"  is  sometimes  used  in  a definition to  give an extended meaning to the word defined. Sometimes it  is used  as a synonym for "means" and not as a word of extension but limitation. [1143C-D]      Dilworth v.  Commissioner of  Stamps, [1899] A.C. 99 at pp.  105-106,  South  Gujarat  Roofing  Tiles  Manufacturers Association &  Anr. v.  State of  Gujarat &  Anr., [1977]  1 S.C.R. 878, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2229 of 1978.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  12-10-1978 of  the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No. 2/78.      N.N. Keshwani and Ramesh N. Keshwani for the Appellant.      A.K. Ganguli for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VENKATARAMIAH, J.-This  appeal is  filed under  section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No. 43 of  1951) (hereinafter  referred to as ’the Act’) against the judgment  of the  High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

Election Petition No. 2 of 1978 by which the election of the appellant to  the Maharashtra  Legislative Assembly from the Armori Constituency  (No. 151) in Chandrapur District at the general election held in February, 1978 was set aside. 1137 The Armori  Constituency was  reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The  appellant   and  respondents  Nos.  1  to  4  were  the candidates at  the election.  As the  appellant secured  the highest number  of votes,  he was  declared as  having  been elected by  the Returning  Officer. In his nomination paper, the appellant declared that he belonged to ’Mana’ community. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 declared themselves as belonging to ’Pradhan’  community and respondent No. 3 claimed that he belonged to  ’Raj Gond’  community. After  the result of the election was  declared, respondent No. 1 who had secured the next highest  number of  votes  at  the  election  filed  an election petition  under section  81 of  the Act  before the High Court of Bombay calling in question the election of the appellant. One of the grounds urged in the petition was that the appellant  did not belong to any of the Scheduled Tribes specified in  Part IX  of the  Schedule to  the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)  Order, 1950  (hereinafter referred to as ’the Order’) as it stood at the time of the election and was not, therefore,  qualified to  be chosen  to fill  the  seat which was reserved for Scheduled Tribes. It was alleged that the appellant  belonged to  Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana community and not  to the ’Mana’ community referred to in Entry No. 18 of Part  IX of  the Schedule  to the Order. Respondent No. 1 also claimed  that in  the event of the appellant’s election being declared  as void, the Court should make a declaration that he  (respondent No.  1) himself  had been duly elected. The High  Court upheld  the contention  of respondent  No. 1 that the  appellant did  not belong  to any of the Scheduled Tribes referred  to in  Part IX of the Schedule to the Order and declared  his election as void. The other prayer made by respondent No.  1 that he should be declared as elected was, however, rejected.  Aggrieved by  the judgment  of the  High Court, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court.      It should  be mentioned  at  this  stage  that  in  the general election  held in  the year  1967, the appellant was declared as  a  successful  candidate  from  the  very  same constituency which was a constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribes at  that time  also and  that on an election petition being filed  against the appellant, the High Court held that he did  not belong  to any of the Scheduled Tribes mentioned in the appropriate part of the Schedule to the Order at that time and  therefore he  was not  qualified  to  contest  the election. Accordingly  his election  was set  aside. In  the appeal filed  before this  Court, the  judgment of  the High Court was  affirmed vide  Dina v.  Narayan Singh.(1)  In the course of  the decision  of this Court, it was held that the appellant belonged to ’Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana’ community and not to the ’Mana’ community 1138 referred to  in Entry No. 12 of Paragraph 5 of Part VII-A of the Schedule  to the  Order as  it stood  at the time of the said election  for the  reasons to  which  we  shall  advert hereafter.      In the  election petition  out  of  which  this  appeal arises, respondent No. 1 pleaded that the appellant belonged to ’Kshatriya  Bidwaik Mana’ community which was not a tribe mentioned  in  the  Schedule  to  the  Order  and  that  the appellant was  not a member of the ’Mana’ community referred to in  Entry No.  18 of Part IX of the Schedule to the Order as it  stood at the time of the election in question. It was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

further alleged  that the  said ’Mana’  community was a sub- tribe of  Gond tribe  and it  had no  relationship with  the ’Kshatriya Bidwaik  Mana’ community  to which  the appellant belonged. The  appellant denied  the above  allegation  that there were two types of Manas viz. (a) ’Mana’ a sub-tribe of ’Gond’ referred  to in  Entry No.  18  of  Part  IX  of  the Schedule to  the Order  and  (b)  ’Kshatriya  Bidwaik  Mana’ community. He further contended that the ’Mana’ community to which he  belonged had been included in that Entry after the Schedule to  the Order  was amended  by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976.      In order  to appreciate  the rival  contentions, it  is necessary to  make a  brief survey of the law bearing on the question. Article  332 of  the  Constitution  provides  that seats shall  be reserved  for the  Scheduled Castes  and the Scheduled Tribes,  except the Scheduled Tribes in the tribal areas of  Assam and Nagaland, in the Legislative Assembly of every State  and that  the number of seats for the Scheduled Castes and  the Scheduled  Tribes so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats in  the Assembly  as the  population of  the Scheduled Castes in  the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State or part  of the  State, as  the case  may be,  in respect of which seats  are so  reserved, bears to the total population of the  State. The  expression ’Scheduled Tribes’ with which we are  concerned in  this case is defined in clause (25) of Article 366  of the  Constitution as  such tribes  or tribal communities or  parts of  or groups  within such  tribes  or tribal communities  as are  deemed under  Article 342  to be Scheduled Tribes  for  the  purposes  of  the  Constitution. Article  342(1)   of  the  Constitution  provides  that  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  purposes  of  the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be. It was in pursuance of this constitutional provision that 1139 the President  issued the  Order specifying  the  tribes  or tribal communities  which should  be deemed  to be Scheduled Tribes in  relation to  the several  parts of India. Article 342(2)  of   the  Constitution  confers  the  power  on  the Parliament to  modify by  law the order issued under Article 342(1) by  including  in  or  excluding  from  the  list  of Scheduled Tribes  specified  therein  any  tribe  or  tribal community or  part of  or group  within any  tribe or tribal community. Section  5(a) of  the Act  provides that a person shall not  be qualified  to be  chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly  of a  State unless,  in the  case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes of that State he is a member of  any of  those tribes  and is  an elector  for any Assembly constituency  in that  State. The area in which the appellant and  respondents Nos.  1  to  4  are  residing  is situate within  the area  known as  Gadchiroli and  Sironcha Tahsils  of   the  Chandrapur   District  of  the  State  of Maharashtra. Prior  to the amendment made in 1956, Entry No. 12 in the relevant part of the Schedule to the Order read as "Gond including  Media (Maria)  and Mudia  (Muria)". By  the Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act 63 of 1956, the  said Entry No. 12 was substituted by Entry No. 12 in Paragraph  (5) of Part VII-A of the Schedule to the Order which was as follows:- "12. Gond, including-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

    Arakh or Arrakh                    Kandra      Agaria                             Kalanga      Asur                               Khatola      Badi Maria or                      Koitar      Bada Maria                         Koya      Bhatola                            Khirwar or Khirwara      Bhimma                             Kucha Maria      Bhuta, Koilabhut                   Kuchaki Maria      or Kollabhuti      Bhar                               Madia (Maria)      Bisonhorn Maria                    Mana      Chota Maria                        Mannewar      Dandami Maria                      Moghya or Mogia or                                         Monghya      Dhuru or Dhurwa                    Mudia (Muria)      Dhoba                              Nagarchi      Dhulia                             Nagwanshi      Dorla                              Ojha      Gaiki                              Raj      Gatta or Gatti                     Sonjhari Jhareka      Gaita                              Thatia or Thotya      Gond Gowari                        Wade Maria or Vade                                         Maria."      Hill Maria      The 30th  tribe amongst  the tribes included within the broad classification  of ’Gond’  tribe is  ’Mana’ tribe.  As mentioned earlier,  the  claim  of  the  appellant  that  he belonged to the said tribe in the previous case 1140 was negatived. In August, 1967, a Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha  proposing to  amend the Schedule to the Order. By that Bill, it was proposed to substitute the Schedule to the Order as  it stood  then by a new Schedule. Part VIII of the new Schedule  related to  Maharashtra. Entry  No. 22 in that Part read as follows: ___________________________________________________________ Tribe          Synonym          Sub-tribe __________________________________________________________  1                2                     3 ___________________________________________________________ "22. Gond       Koitur   Arakh            Kalanga                          Bada Madia       Kandra                          Bhatola          Koya                          Chhota Madi      Khirwar                          Dandami Mad      Kucha Madia                          Dhulia           Kuchaki Madia                          Dhuru or Dwa     Machalir Madia                          Dhoba            Mana                          Dorla            Mannewar                          Gaiki            Mudia                          Gaita            Nagarchi                          Gatta or Gi      Nagwanshi                                           Naikpod                                           Ojha                                           Sonjhari Jharekha                                           Thatia or Thotia." _________________________________ __________________________      In the  proposed Entry, ’Mana’ community was shown as a sub-tribe of ’Gond’ tribe. With the concurrence of the Rajya Sabha, the  Bill was  referred to  a Joint  Committee of the Parliament presided  over by Shri Anil K. Chanda. The Report of the  Joint Committee on the Bill was presented to the Lok Sabha on  November 17,  1969. In  so far  as the  amendments proposed to  the Schedule  to the  Order were concerned, the Joint Committee  inter alia  observed  at  Paragraph  20(ii)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

thus:-           "20(ii). The  Committee feel  that the proposal to      specify the  tribes, the synonyms and the sub-tribes in      three separate  columns will  not be appropriate. As in      the case  of Schedule  Castes Orders, the Committee are      of the view that it would be best to follow the wording      of article 342(1) of the Constitution and specify. "The      tribes or  tribal communities,  or parts  of, or groups      within, tribes  or tribal  communities".  Each  of  the      Scheduled Tribes Orders have been modified accordingly,      and in  the lists  of Scheduled  Tribes the  main tribe      name is  written first  followed by  the  synonyms  and      subtribes in alphabetical order." 1141      The Joint Committee also recommended that the Mana sub- tribe referred  to in  the Bill  should be excluded from the Schedule to  the Order altogether. Thereafter the matter was again considered  by the  Parliament. In  the  Statement  of Objects and Reasons dated May 12, 1976 attached to the Bill, it was stated as follows:-           "Under the  Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes      Orders  some   communities  have   been  specified   as      Scheduled Castes or as Scheduled Tribes only in certain      areas of  the State concerned and not in respect of the      whole State.  This has  been  causing  difficulties  to      member of  these communities  in the  areas where  they      have not  been so specified. The present Bill generally      seeks to  remove these  area restrictions.  However, in      cases  where  continuance  of  such  restrictions  were      specifically recommended  by the Joint Committee on the      Scheduled   Castes    and   Scheduled   Tribes   Orders      (Amendment) Bill,  1967, no  change is  being effected.      The Committee had also recommended exclusion of certain      communities from  the lists  of  Scheduled  Castes  and      Scheduled Tribes.  These exclusions  are not being made      at present  and such  communities are being retained in      the lists  with the  present area restrictions. Such of      the communities in respect of which the Joint Committee      had recommended  exclusion on the ground that they were      not found  in a  State are,  however, being excluded if      there were  no returns  in respect of these communities      in the censuses of 1961 and 1971............." Thereafter the Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act,  1976 (Act  No. 108 of 1976) was  passed by the Parliament  and  it  had  come  into  force  before  the election in  question was held. By the above Act, the entire Schedule to the Order as it stood prior to the amendment was substituted by  a new Schedule consisting of XVI parts. Part IX of  the new Schedule relates to the State of Maharashtra. Entry No.  18 of  Part IX of the new Schedule corresponds to Entry No.  22 of the Bill referred to above and to Entry No. 12 in  Paragraph (5)  of Part VII-A of the Order as it stood prior to  the amendment.  Entry No.  18 of  Part IX  of  the Schedule to the Order after the amendment reads thus:-           "18. Gond;  Rajgond, Arakh,  Arrakh, Agaria,  Asur      Badi  Maria,   Bada  Maria,   Bhatola,  Bhimma,  Bhuta,      Koilabhuta, Koilabhuti,  Bhar, Bisonhorn  Maria,  Chota      Maria, Dhandami   Maria,  Dhuru, Dhurwa, Dhoba, Dhulia,      Dorla, Gaiki,  Gatta, Gatti,  Gaita, Gond  Gowari, Hill      Maria, Kandra, Kalanga, 1142      Khatola, Koitar,  Koya, Khirwar, Khirwara, Kucha Maria,      Kuchaki Maria,  Madia, Maria,  Mana, Mannewar,  Moghya,      Mogia,  Monghnya,   Mudia,  Muria,  Nagarchi,  Naikpod,      Nagwanshi, Ojha, Raj, Sonjhari Jhareka, Thatia, Thotya,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

    Wade Maria, Vade Maria."      It is  seen from  the above Entry that ’Mana’ community is  one   of  the  communities  included  in  the  group  of communities headed  by Gond  community. It  appears that the recommendation of the Joint Committee to exclude it from the Schedule to the Order was not accepted by the Parliament.      If the  Schedule to  the Order  had not  undergone  any change, there would not have been any room for argument that the appellant  was a  person belonging  to a Scheduled Tribe eligible to  contest as a candidate at an election to fill a seat from  the reserved  constituency as  the  question  was conducted by  the judgment  of this  Court  in  Dina’s  case (supra).  Mr.   M.  M.   Phadke,  learned  counsel  for  the appellant, however, argued that a comparison of Entry No. 12 as it  stood prior  to the  amendment and Entry No. 18 as it stood on  the date  of the  election in  question would show that the Parliament while substituting the Schedule by a new Schedule by Act No. 108 of 1976 intended to make a departure from the  old law  and that every person who belonged to any ’Mana’ community whether it had any affinity with Gond tribe or not  would be  entitled to the privilege of contesting at the election  from the  reserved constituency.  The question for consideration  before us  therefore is whether by reason of the amendment made in the year 1976, persons belonging to the Mana community to which the appellant belonged and which was not  a Scheduled  Tribe before  such  amendment  can  be considered as  persons belonging  to a Scheduled Tribe after such amendment.      Apart from  Article 366(25)  of the Constitution, there is no other definition of the expression "Scheduled Tribes". Scheduled Tribes are, therefore, only those which are deemed under Article  342  of  the  Constitution  to  be  Scheduled Tribes. Hence  in order to find out whether a community is a Scheduled Tribe  or not, we have only to see the order which is made under Article 342 of the Constitution.      Mr. M.  N. Phadke,  learned counsel  for the  appellant drew the  attention of the Court to the omission of the word ’including’ which  according to  him, had been used in Entry No. 12 of the Schedule as it stood prior to the amendment to indicate that  the communities mentioned after it were those having affinity  with the  ’Gond’ tribe,  from the new Entry No. 18 of Part IX of the Schedule to the Order and 1143 contended that  the group  of communities mentioned in Entry No. 18  need not necessarily be those having mutual affinity amongst them.  On the above basis, it was urged on behalf of the  appellant   that  a  person  belonging  to  any  ’Mana’ community should  be treated  as a  person  belonging  to  a Scheduled Tribe  even though  it had  no affinity  with  the ’Gond’ tribe.  We  find  it  difficult  to  agree  with  the submission made  by him.  Sometimes, the word ’including’ is used in  a definition  to   give an extended meaning also to the word  defined. In Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps(1), Lord Watson  observed that  when  the word ’include’ is used in an  interpretation clause to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases  in a  statute "these  words or  phrases must  be construed as  comprehending, not  only such  things as  they signify according  to their  natural import  but also  those things which  the interpretation  clause declares  that they shall include".  Sometimes the  word ’includes’ is used as a synonym for  ’means’ and  not as  a word  of extension,  but limitation.  This   again  is   clear  from   the  following observations of  Lord Watson  in the  decision  referred  to above:-           "But the  word ’include’ is susceptible of another

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

    construction, which  may   become  imperative,  if  the      context of  the Act  is sufficient  to show that it was      not merely  employed for  the purpose  of adding to the      natural  significance   of  the  words  or  expressions      defined. It  may be  equivalent to  ’mean and include’,      and  in   that  case   it  may   afford  an  exhaustive      explanation of  the meaning  which, for the purposes of      the Act,  must invariably be attached to these words or      expressions."      In   South    Gujarat   Roofing   Tiles   Manufacturers Association &  Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.(2) this Court interpreted the  expression ’includes’ found in Entry No. 22 which had  been included  in Part  I of  the Schedule to the Minimum Wages  Act, 1948  by the Gujarat Government as being equivalent to  ’means’. It  is significant that even when it was possible  to give  an extended meaning to the expression ’Mana’ appearing  in Entry  No. 12  in the  Order before the amendment relying on the presence of the word ’including’ in that Entry,  this Court  gave a restricted meaning to it and held that only that ’Mana’ community which had affinity with the Gond  community could be considered as a Scheduled Tribe and that  Kshatriya Bidwaik  Mana  community  to  which  the appellant belonged  could not  be  treated  as  a  Scheduled Tribe. Now  that the  word ’including’ has been omitted from the present  Entry No.  18, is  it open  to construe  it  as including  communities   which  had  no  affinity  with  the principal tribe ’Gond’ mentioned first in that Entry? 1144 We do  not think  that it  is possible to do so. Even though the proceedings of the Joint Committee cannot be relied upon for the  purpose of construing the Order, they may be looked into to  ascertain the  circumstances in  which the  several communities were  grouped under  one Entry or the other. The extract from  the proceedings  of the Joint Committee quoted above shows  that in order to avoid confusion, the Committee recommended to  follow the  words  in  Article  342  of  the Constitution and to enlist the "tribes or tribal communities or parts of, or groups within, tribes or tribal communities" under specific  Entries. It  also recommended  that the main tribe should be mentioned first in any Entry followed by its synonyms and  its sub-tribes  in  alphabetical  order.  Even without the  aid of  the proceedings of the Joint Committee, it is  possible to  arrive at  the same  conclusion  in  the context in  which the  word ’Mana’ is found in Entry No. 18. Part IX  of the  Schedule to  the Order  as it  stands today contains 47  Entries. In  certain entries only one community is mentioned  and in certain others. two or more communities are mentioned.  It is  obvious that certain communities have been grouped  together under  a single entry in the light of Article 342  of the  Constitution which requires parts of or groups within a tribal community also to be specified in the order issued  thereunder. It  is, therefore,  reasonable  to hold that  the communities  mentioned against  any  specific entry are those which have mutual affinity amongst them.      It is  also not  possible to hold that by replacing the Schedule to  the Order  by a  new Schedule  by the Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled Tribes  Orders (Amendment)  Act, 1976, the  Parliament  intended  to  treat  persons  belonging  to ’Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana’ community also as Scheduled Tribes. If really  that was the intention, the Parliament would have mentioned ’Mana’  community under  an independent entry. The inclusion of  the ’Naikpod’  community amongst  the group of communities in Entry No. 18 for the first time also is of no special significance since the appellant has admitted in the course of his evidence that ’Naikpod’ is also a tribe, found

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

alongwith other  Scheduled Tribes in that area and it is not stated that the said tribe has no affinity with them. It may have been omitted from the order earlier due to oversight.      A reading  of the Schedule to the Order also shows that where there  are two  communities with  the same  name,  one having affinity  with a  tribe  and  the  other  not  having anything to  do with  such tribe  and both  are  treated  as Scheduled Tribes  the  community  which  has  affinity  with another tribe  is shown  alongwith  it  in  the  same  group against a  single entry  and the  other is  shown against  a different entry. This is illus- 1145 trated by  the inclusion  of  the  ’koya’  community  having affinity with  ’Gonds’  in  Entry  No.  18  and  the  ’koya’ community having no such affinity in Entry No. 33 of Part IX of the  Schedule to the Order. If the Parliament intended to treat the  appellant’s community  also as a Scheduled Tribe, it would have shown ’Mana’ community under a separate entry. No such entry is found in the Schedule.      Some arguments  were addressed  at the Bar on the basis of the  difference in the punctuation marks used in Entry 12 and in  entry 18. It is well known that punctuation marks by themselves do  not control the meaning of a statute when its meaning is  otherwise obvious.  Hence we do not feel that we should deal  with it  in greater detail having regard to the nature of this case.      We are, therefore of the view that the ’Mana’ community included in Entry No. 18 can only be that which has affinity with ’Gonds’  and any  other community  which also bears the name ’Mana’  but does  not have  any such affinity cannot be deemed to fall within the scope of ’Mana’ in Entry No. 18.      The appellant  has categorically admitted in the course of his  evidence that  there was  no connection  between his community and  Gonds. His  evidence is,  "We have no concern with the  Gond community  also. The  customs and  traditions with regand  to marriage of our community are different from those of  the Gonds".  He has  also stated in his deposition that ’I  have no  concern whatsoever  with Gonds.  There are sub-castes amongst Gonds. Some of them are Arak, Gowari, Raj gond, Bada  Magia, Madia,  Ojha and  Wanjari. It is not true that Mana is a sub-caste of the Gonds. There is no community known as  Gond’. That  the appellant  was a  member  of  the ’Mana’ community  which has the qualification of ’Kshatriya’ is established  by his  admission in  his deposition that he was a member of the Kshatriya Mana Shikshana Sahayak Mandal, Chandrapur. Although  in another  part of  his statement  of objections, there  are some  contradictory  statements,  the following plea  in para  9 of  the said  statement makes  it obvious that  there is  a community called Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana community:-           "9-As  to  Para  11  :-It  is  admitted  that  the      respondent No.  1 was  the Vice-President for some time      and also an active worker of the Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana      Shikshana Sanastha.  The object of the said institution      was not  limited to  spread education  amongst the boys      belonging to  Kshatriya Bidwaik  Mana community, and it      is denied that the said 1146      society has  been founded  in order to give educational      facilities to  the students belonging to this community      only".      In the appeal filed by the appellant where the question was whether  he belonged  to a  Scheduled Tribe or not, this Court observed:           "That there  are sub-tribes  amongst the  Gonds is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

    not denied.  Names of  some  of  those  sub-tribes  are      included in  Entry 12  of Item  5 of  Part VII-A of the      Schedule is  also a matter which is beyond dispute. The      customs, manners,  form of  worship, and  dress of  the      members of the Maratha Mana community are all different      from the  customs manner,  form of worship and dress of      the Gonds.  No rational  explanation has been suggested      why the  Parliament should  have, while including under      Entry 12  several sub-tribes  of Gonds,  specified Mana      under that  entry, if Manas had no affinity at all with      Gonds. The appellant was uncertain about the claim that      he was  making. In the nomination paper filed by him he      claim to  be a  Gond (Mana). His subsequent explanation      that he  did so because the rules so required cannot be      accepted as  true. He  relied upon the status of a Mana      in the  belief that all Manas were intended to be given      the  benefit   of  the   privileges  conferred  by  the      Scheduled Tribes  Order. He described himself as a Gond      (Mana). Realizing  thereafter that his community had no      affinity with  the Gonds  he stated  that he  was not a      Gond; that  he had  nothing to  do with  the Gonds, and      that his  community had  also nothing  to do  with  the      Gonds. He  rested his claim solely upon the description      in Entry 12 in item 5 of Part VIIA of the Schedule. But      the form  in  which  the  entry  is  made  prima  facie      indicates that in the view of the Legislature, Mana was      a sub-tribe of Gonds and a Mana who was a member of the      sub-tribe of Gonds alone was entitled to the privileges      conferred by  the  Schedule  to  the  Scheduled  Tribes      Order.           We therefore  agree with  the High  Court that the      appellant, merely  because  he  belonged  to  the  Mana      community amongst  the Marathas,  is  not  eligible  to      stand as  a candidate  for election  to the Maharashtra      Legislative Assembly  from the  reserved  seat  of  the      Armori constituency  in  Gadchiroli  tahsil  of  Chanda      District."      The position  has not  since changed  even  though  the Schedule to  the Order  is substituted  by a  new  Schedule. There has only been a 1147 re-arrangement of  the  Schedule  with  slight  modification which has no effect on the question at issue in this case.      The High  Court was,  therefore, right in rejecting the case of the appellant that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, and  in  setting  aside  his  election  to  the  Maharashtra Legislative Assembly.      In the  result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. P.B.R.                                     Appeal dismissed. 1148