http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHRI A. CHINNAPPA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI V. VENKATAMUNI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BHARUCHA S.P. (J) PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (3) 585        JT 1996 (4)   213  1996 SCALE  (3)389

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The  appellant   had   contested   election   fram   72 Bethamangala  Assembly   Constitueney  of   Karnataka  State Legislature as  reserved candidate The appellant claimed the status of  Mundala which  is a  recognised  Scheduled  Caste notified by  the Pregident  of India  in exercise  of  power under Article  341 [1l of the Constitution. He contested the said election  on that  basis and  stood  elected.  When  an election pSetitlon  was laid  by the  first respondents  the High Court  found that  the caste  to  which  the  appellant belongs is  Mondy/Mondigaru. The  High Court on the basis Of evidence on  record  found  that  the  appellant,  in  fact, belongs t.o  Mondy/Mondigaru caste  which was not recognised as a Scheduled Caste in the Presidential notification  There fore the  High Court  declared by  the impugned  order dated April 30,1987 passed in Election petition No.21 of 1985 that his elections  to the Assembly constituency allotted to thee Scheduled Caste was not valid in law. Thus this appeal.      The question  before us  is. whether  the status of the appe11ant who  is a  Mondy/Mondigaru, can  be considered  as Mundala -  a Scheduled  Caste synonym,  for the  purpose  of election to  the Legistative  Assembly?  Article  341  reads thus:s      "341.  Scheduled  Castes.  [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 notifications,  specify  the      castes, races,  or tribes  or parts      of or  groups Within  castes, races      or  tribes   which  shall  for  the      purposes of  this  Constitution  be      deemed to  be Scheduled  Castes  in

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

    relation to  that  State  or  Union      Territory, as the case may be.      [2] Parliament  may by  law include      in or  exclude  from  the  list  of      Scheduled  Castes  specified  in  a      notification  issued  under  clause      [1] any  caste, race  or  tribe  or      part of  or group within any caste,      rece  or   tribe,   but   save   as      aforesaid  a   notification  issued      under the  said clause shall not be      varied    by     any,    subsequent      notification".      A reading  thereof  would  clearly  indicate  that  the President may, with respect to any State or Union Territory, after   consu1tarion    with   the   Governor,   by   public notification, specify  the castes,  races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall, for the purposes  of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in  relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may  be. Under  clause [2]  thereof the  Parliament has been empowered  by law  either to include in or exclude from the list  of Scheduled  Castes specified  by  the  President under clause  [1] of Article 341 any caste, race or tribe or part of  or group within any caste, race or tribes. Once the Parliament by  law includes  in or  excludes from  any race, caste, tribe,  parts of  or groups within any caste, race or tribes, the President thereafter shall have no power to vary by any  subsequent notification  the said caste, race, tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe. Thus it could be  seen that since the caste Mondy/Mondigaru does not admittedly find  place in  the notification  issued  by  the President or  as amended  by the  Scheduled  Caste/Scheduled Tribes [Amendment  Order]  Act,  1976,  the  status  of  the appellant as  Mundala cannot  be considered to be synonymous of or  equivalent  to  Mondy/Mondigaru  as  claimed  by  the appellant. This  Court in  a recent  judgment  in  NItyanand Sharma v. State of Bihar [JT 1996 (2) SC 117] has considered the scope  of the  power of the Court to declare the entries of the  Presidential notification  under Article 342 [1] and had held that no court has power to give such a declaration. The limited scope of enquiry is whether the caste claimed by the candidates  finds  place  in  the  notification  of  the President  as   amended  under  the  Act.  The  High  Court, therefore, was  right in  its conclusion  that the appellant cannot have  the status  of Scheduled  Caste to  contest the said Legislative  Assembly election. The learned counsel for the appellant  has relied  upon Revenue  Officer &  Ors.  v. Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors. [(1990) 2 SCC 162]. In that case, admittedly Dhoba  is one  of the  castes recognised  by  the President as  Schedule Caste  in relation  to the  State  of Orissa. Since  the appellant tharein claimed the status as a Rajaka in  one of  the sale deeds, it was sought to deny him the benefits  conferred on  Scheduled Castes. This Court had held that  since the  President has  notified  Dhoba  to  be Scheduled Caste  in relation  to the State of Orissa, merely because he  described himself  to be  a Rataka in one of the sale deeds,  his status  as a  Scheduled Caste  is not taken away  by   such  description.   The  ratio  therein  has  no applicatin to the facts in this case.      The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.