Holding

Only the Mana community that has affinity with the Gond tribe is a Scheduled Tribe; the Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana community does not qualify, rendering the appellant ineligible for the reserved seat.

Summary

In the 1978 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election for the Armori constituency (reserved for Scheduled Tribes), the appellant Dadaji was declared elected, claiming membership in the "Mana" community. The unsuccessful candidate challenged the election, arguing that Dadaji did not belong to any Scheduled Tribe listed in Part IX of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended. The High Court set aside the election, and the Supreme Court examined whether the "Mana" community mentioned in the Schedule after the 1976 amendment included the Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana community, which had no affinity with the Gond tribe. The Court held that only the Mana sub‑tribe that is part of the Gond tribe qualifies as a Scheduled Tribe; the appellant's Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana community does not, and therefore he was ineligible for the reserved seat. Consequently, the High Court's decision was affirmed and the appellant's election was declared void.

Issues considered

Whether the Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana community is a Scheduled Tribe under Part IX of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended in 1976.
Whether the omission of the word "including" in the amended Schedule changes the scope of the term "Mana" to include communities without affinity to the Gond tribe.
Whether the appellant was qualified to contest a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 332, s. 342, s. 366
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 116-A, s. 81
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1956
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1976

Subjects

Scheduled TribesReservationElection lawRepresentation of the People ActConstitutional provision Article 342Interpretation of "including"Tribal affinityMaharashtra Legislative Assembly

Judgment

113S

DADAJI ALIAS DINA
I'.

SUKHDEOBABU & ORS.
November 7, 1979 ·
[V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND R S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.J
B
Rl•p:·cs'entation of People Act 1951-Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)
'-Order, 1950 read as "Gond including" certain tribes-Amendntent 1t1ade. in
1976 D'mitted "including" and added "Mana" as a tribe having afliniry with
•iconds"-Omission of "including" if nteans any "Mana" community not having
-'Dffinity with "Gonds''-"Ksllatriya Bidwaik- Mana" co1nn1unity, if a Scheduled
Tribe.
c
Entry 12 o~Part IX of the Schedule to the Constitution {Scheduled
Tribes) Order 1950 prior to its amendment in 1956 read as "Gond inclutling
'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 VIT-A of the Schedule to the Order. It read as
·'12 Got.I, including: Arakh or Arrah ... Mana .... " "Mana" was the 30th
comm<mlty amongst the communities included in that Entry. In 1976 the D
entire Schedule to the order as it stood prior to the amendment was substituted
·by a new Schedule. Entry 18 of Part IX of lhe new Schedule corresponding
Lo Bu1ry 12, prior to the amendment, showed 'Mana' community as one of the
conmmnities included in the group of communities headed by "Gond" com~
·munity.

In tbe election to the State Assembly held in February, 1978 the appellant
was dedared successful from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribes.
'In his clection petition impugning the appellant's election respon<Jent no. 1 who
•
was the unsuccessful candidate challenged the election on the ground that the
apPdlant did not belong to any of the Scheduled Tribes specified in Part IX
of the Schedule to the 1950 Order as it sto_od at the time of the election and
was therefore not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat reserved for the Schedul-
~d Tribes.

The High Court set '1.side the appellant's election.
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that
whtle the word "including" in Entry 12 of the 1950 Order as it stood after
its ameOOment in 1956 showed that the communities referred to therein were
·th~ having affinity with the Gond Tribe and its omission in Entry 18 as G
-~ in 1976 showed that the group of communities mentioned in this
Entryf need not necessarily be those having mutool affinity amongst them so
1het a person ,belonging to any ' 1Mana" community should be treated as a
person belonging tO a Scheduled Tribe even though it had no affinity with the
'Good' tn"be. .

Di>missing the ap~al H
HELD : 1. The High Court was right in setting aside the appellant's elec·
iion <>n the ·ground that he did not belong to a Schedule Tribe. [1147 BJ
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980) 1 S.(';.R.

2. (a) Even when the Order, before its amendment in 1976 used the ~
"including", this Court giving. a restricted mening to "Mana", held that onl'i/'
'Mana' community which had affinity with ~ 'Gond' community could be con- ·
sidered as a Scheduled Tribe and that 'Ks~. Bidwaik Maoo' community
to which the appellant belonged could not be ~ted as a Scheduled Tribe.
[1143F-G]

• (b) A reading of fart IX of the Schedule to the Order shows that certaii>
communities had been grouped together under a single Entry in the light of
Article 342 of. the Constitution which requires prut of or groups wit.hin a tnbal
community also to be specified in the Order. Therefore the communi~
mentioned against any specific Entry are those which have mutuai affinity
amongst them. [1144C-EJ

c ( c) Merely because a new Schedule had been substituted for the old one
it cannot be said !hilt Parliament had intended to treat persons belonging t<>
"Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana" community also its 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 comii)unity which has affinity with another tnbe is. shown along with
1
it in the same gronp ag.,inst a single Entry and the other is shown against a
D 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, 1145e-D]

3. The term 0 including" is sometimes used in a _definition to give an extetid- .
ed meaning to the word defined. Sometimes it. is used as a synonym for
•means" and not as. a word of extension but limitation. [1143C]
Dilworth ·v. Commissioner of Stamps, [1899] A.C. 99 at pp. 105-106, ·soutTt
Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufacturers Association & Anr. v. State of Gujarat
& Anr., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 878, referred to. ·

CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2229 of 1978.
r From the Judgment and Order dated 12-10-1978 of the Bombay
High Court in Election Petition No. 2/78.
N. N. Kcshwani and Ramesh N. Keshwarli for the Appellant.
A. K. Ganguli for the Respondent.
G The Judgmept 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 Election Petition No. 2 of 1978'
H 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.
DADAJI v. SUKHDEOBABU (Venkataramiah, J.) 1137

The Annori Constituency was reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The A
appellant and respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were the candidates at the elec-
tion. As· the appellant secured the highest number of votrs, 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. L 2 and 4 declared themselves as
belonging to 'Pradhan' community and respondent No. 3 claimed that B
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 c
was that the appellant did not belong to any of the Schoouled 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 tilW of the election and was not, therefore, qualified to be
chosen to fill the seat which was Jeeserved for Scheduled Tribes. It
was alleged that the appellant belonged to Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana D
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 ,ieclared as
void, the Court should make a declaration tha~ he (respondent No. 1)
himself had been duly elected. The High Court upheld the contenti6n
of respondent No. 1 that the appellant did not belong to any of the E
Scheduled Tribes referred to in Part IX of the Schedule to the Order
and declared his election as void. The other prayer made by respan~
dent No. 1 that he should be declared as elected was, however, rejected.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant lias come
up in appeal to this Court.
F
It should be mentioned at this stage that in the general election
held in the year 1967, the appellant was declared as a successful candi-
date from the very same constituency which was a constituency reserved
for Scheduled Tribes at that time also and that an an election petition
being jle<l against the appellant, the High Court held that he did not
lklong to any of {be Scheduled Tribes mentioned in the appropriate G
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 affinned vide Dina v. Narayan Singh.(1) In the course of
the decision of this Court, it was held that the appellant belonged to
H
· 'Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana' community and not to the 'Mana· community
'
(1) 38 E.L.R. 212.
18-743 SCI/79
1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A referred to in Entry No. 12 of Paragraph 5 of Part Vil-A of the Sche-
dule 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 ont of which this appeal arises, respondent
N(l. 1 pleaded that the appellant belonged to 'Kshatriyai Bidwaik Mana'
B community which was not a tribe mentioned in the Schedule to the
Order and that the appellant was not a member of the 'Mana· com-
munity 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 further
alleged that the 8llid 'Mana' community was a sub-tribe of. Gond tribe
and it had no relationship with the 'Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana' com-
c
munity to which the appellant be-longed. The appellant denied the
above allegation that there were two typea cd Minas viz. (a) 'Mana' a
sub-tribe of 'Gond' refme<l to in Entry No. 18 of Part IX of the
.~chedule 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
D amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amend-
ment) Act, 1976.
In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to make
a brief snrvey of the law bearing on th~ question. Article 332 of the
Constitution provides that seais 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 Schednled 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 th6 '
population of the Schednled Castes in the State or of the Schednled
Tribes in thei State or part oil 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 'Schednled Tribes' with, which we arei concerned
in this case is defined in clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution
as such tribes or tribal communities oc parts of or gr01Up& within such
G tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 to be
Schednled Tribes for the purposes of thei eon.titution. Article 342(i.) ·
of tho Constitution provides that the President may with respect to any
State or Union territory and where it is a State after consnltation with
the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal
communities or parts of or groups, within tnbes or tribal communities
H which shall for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed ta be ·
Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the
case may be. It was in pnrsnance of this constitutional provision that
DADAJI v. SUKHI>EOBABU (Venkataramiah, !.) 1139

the President issued the Order specifying the tribes or tribal communities A
which should be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes .in re!atiQP 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
AJ:ticle 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 S(a) o~ the Act B
provides that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat
ill the Legislative Assembly of a State unless, ill the case of a seat
reserved for the Scheduled Tribes of that State he is ai member of any
of those tribes and is an elector for any Assembly constituency ill 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
c
Tahsils of the Chandrapnr District of the State of Maharashtra. Prior
to the amendment made in 1956, Entry No. 12 ill 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 substi- D
tuted by Entry No. 12 in Paragraph (5) of Part VII-A of the Schedule
to the Order which was as follows :-
'112. Gond, including-
Arakh or Arrakh Kandra
Agaria Kalanga
Asur Khatola E
Ba.di Maria or Koitar
B•da Maria Koya
Bhatola Kbirwar or Khirwara
Bbimma Kucha Maria
Bhuta, Koilabhuta Kucbaki Maria
or E:ollabhuti
Bhar Madia (Maria) I'
Blsoohom Maria Mana
Chota Maria Mannewar
Dondl!mi Maria Moghya or Megia or Monghya
Dhuru or Dhurwa Mudia (Murial
Dhoba Nagarchi
Dhu!ia Nagwanshi
Dorla Ojha G
G•.lld Raj
Gatta or Gatti Sonjhari Jhr.reka
Gaita Thatia or Thotya
GondGowari Wade Maria or Vade Maria."
Hill Maria
The .30th tribe amongst the tribes illcluded within the broad classifi- H
cation of 'Gond' tribe1 is 'Mana' tribe. As mentioned earlier, the claim
of the appellant that he belonged to the said tribe iri the previous ca8e
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 s.c.R.

l :A 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 Schedul~ to the Order as it stood then
by a new Schedule. Part VIII of the new Schedule! related to Maha-
rashtra. Entry No. 22 in that Part read as follows :

'B Tribe Synonym Sub-tribe

1 2 3
0
22. Good Koitur Arakh Kalanga
Bada Madia Kandra
c Bhatola
Chhota Madia
Ko ya
Khirwar
Dandami Madia Kucha Madia
Dhulia Kuchaki Madia
Dhuru or Dhurwa Machalir Madia
Dhoba Mana
Dorla Mannewar
D Gaiki Mudia
Gaita Nagarchi
Gatta or Gatti · Nagwanshi
Naikpod
Ojha
• Sonjhari Jharekha
Thatia or Thotia." +
E
In the proposed Entry, 'Mana' community was shown as a sub-tribe
of 'Gond' tribe. With the concurrence of tile Rajya Sabha, the Bill
was referred to a Joint Committee of the Parliament presided over by
Sbri Anil K. Chanda.. The Report of the Joint Cori:unitteel on the Bill
' F 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) thus : -
"20(ii). The Committee feel that .the proposal to specify
the tribes, tho synonyms and the sub-tribes in three separate
G colµmns will not be apprcpriate. · As in the case of Sche-
dule 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
H accardingly, and in the lists of Scheduled Tribes the main
tribe name is written first followed by the synonyms and sub-
tribys in alphabetjcalorder."
DADAJI v. SUKHDEOBABU (Vtnkataramiah, !.) 1 141

The Joint Committee also recommended that the Mana snb-tribe A '
~:eferred to in the Bill should be excluded from the Schedule to the
-Order altogether. Thereafter the matte.r 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 B
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 members of tlr..,se communities in
the areas where they have not been so specified. 1be present
Bill generally seeks to remove these area! restrictions. How- c
ever, in cases where continuance of such restriction~ were
specifically recommended by the Joint Committee on the
Scheduleo 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 ex- D
clusions are not being; made at present and such communities
are being retained in the lists with the pre~ent area: restric-
tions. 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
E 7
if there were .no returns in respect of these communities iri
the censuses of 1961· and 1971. . . . . . . . . "

' Thereafter the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe's Orders (Amend-
ment) Act, 1976 (Act No. i08 of 1976) wasl passed by th'e 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 corres-
ponds 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 G
amendment. E11try No. 18 of Part IX of the Schedule to the Order
afler the amendment reads1 thus : -
"l 8. Good; Rajgond, Arakh, Arrakh, Agaria, Asut Badi
Maria, Bada Maria, Bhatola, Bhimma, Bhuta, Koilabhuta,
Koilabhuti, Bhar, Bisonhorn Maria, Chota, Maria, Dhandami H
Maria, Dhuru, Dhurwa, Dhoba, Dhulia, Dorla, Gaiki, Gatta,
Gatti, Gaita, Gond Gowari, Hill Maria, Kandra, Kalanga,
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 s.c.R.

A Khatola,· K-oitar, Koya, Khirwa.r, Khirwara, Kucha' Maria,
Kuchaki Maria, Madia, Maria,· Mana, Mannewar, Moghya,
Mogia, Monghnya, Mudia, Muria, Nagarchi, Naikpod. Nag•
wanshi, Ojha, Raj, Sonjhari .Jhareka, Thatia, Thotya, Wade
Maria, Vade Maria."
1B 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 Com-
mittee to exclude it from the Schedule to the Order was not accepted
by the Parliament.
, C 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 a& a candidate
at an election to fill a seat from thtl reserved constituency as the question
was concluded by the judgment of this Court in Dina's' case (supra).
l\1r. M, M. Phadke, learned; counsel for the appellant, however, argued
D . that a comparison ofl Entry No. ·12 as it stood prior to the amendment
and Entry No. 18 as it stood ou 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
E 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 yea:t" 1976, persons
belonging to the Mana community to which the appellant belonged
and which was not a Scheduled. Tribe before such amendment can be
I' 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 Con-
stitution to be Sche<luled Tribes. Hence in order to find out whether
G a community is a Scheduled Tribe or not, we have ouly to see the
order which is made under Article 342 of the Constitution.
Mr. M. N. Phadke. learned counsel for the appellant drew t11e
attention of the Court to the omission of the wo.rd 'including' which
according to him, had been used in Entry No. 12 of the Schedule as
H it stood prior to the amendment to indicate that the communities men-
tioned 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
DADAJI v. SUKHDEOBABU (Venkataramiah, J.) 1143

cont~~ded that the group of communities mentioned 'in Entry No. 1.8 A
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
l . 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
B
to give an extended meaning also to the word defined. In Dilworth v.
Commissioner of Stamps(!), Lord Watson observed that whe111 the word
'include' is used in an interpretation clause to enlarge the meaning of
words or phrases in a statute "these words or phrases mnst be construed
as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according tci c
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
!imitation. 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 con- D
stnrction, which ma}\ become imperative, if the context o~ 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 exhau.stive expla-
E
nation of the meaning which, for the pw:poses of the Act,
must invariably be attached to theso wqrds 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 beeu included in Part I of
the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by the Guja.rat Govern-
ment as being equivalent to 'means'. It i~ 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 G
which had affinity with the Gond community could be considered as a
Scheduled Tribe and tha~ Kshatriya Bidwaik Mana community to whicl).
the appellant belonged could not be treated as a Scheduled Tribe.. Now
that the word 'including' has been omitted from. thei 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? H
(I) [1899] A.C. 99, 105-106
(2) [197711 S.C.R. 878.
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A We do not think that >tis possible to do so. Even thougli the proceed-
ings of the Joint Committee cannot be relied upon for the purpose of
construing the Order, they may be looked into to ascertain· the circum-
stances 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
B recommended to follow the words in Article 342 of the Constitution
and to enlist the "tribes or tribal eanurmnities 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
c 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 toiday contains 47 Entries, In certain entries
only one community is mentioned and in certain others. two or more
communities are mentioned. It is obvious &at certain communities
'
D have been grouped together under a single entry in the light Of Article
342 of the Constitution which requires parts Olf or groups within a
tribal community also to be specified in the order issued thereu.nder.
It is, therefore, reasonable to hold that the communities mentioned
against any SJl'~dfic entry are those which bave mutual affinity amongst
. them.
E
It is :Hso 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 inrention, the • Parliament
F . would have mentioned 'Mana' community under an independent entry.
The inclusion of the 'Naikpod' communjty 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 evi~
dence that 'Naikpod' is also a tribe, found alongwith othoc Scheduled
Tribes in that area and it is not stated that the said tribe has no affinity
G 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
H are 1treated 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-
DADAJI V. SUKHDEOBABU (Venkataramiah, J.) 1145

trated by the inclusion of the 'koya' commwuty having affinity with A
•oortds' in Entry No. 18 and the 'koya' commwiity having no such
oaffinity in Entry No. 33 of Part IX of the Schedule to the Order. If
the Parliament intended to treat the appellant'> community also as a
Scheduled Tribe, it would have shown 'Mana' commwlity under a
·separate entry. No such entry is found in the Schedule.
B
SOme argwnents were addres•ed at the Bar on the basis of the
·difference in the punc,tuation 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 mealing 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.
c
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 commwlity which also bears the name 'Mana' but does not
have any such affinity cannot be deemed to fall within the scope of
D
..Mana' in Entry No. 18.

The appellant has categorically adnlitted 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 com-
munity also. The customs and traditions with regaro to marriage E
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 Watijari. It
is not ~e that Mana is a sub-caste of the Gonds. There is no
<:ommunity known as Gond'. That the appellant was a member of F
:the 'Mana' commnnity which has the qualification of 'Kshatriya' is
•established by his admission in his deposition that he was a m~mber
of the Kshatriya Mana Shikshana Sahayak Manda!, Chandrapur. Al-
:though 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 G
Bidwaik Mana commullity:-
"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
·samastha. The object of the said institution was not limited H
to spread education amongst the boys belonging to Kshatriya
Bidwaik Mana community, and it is denied, that the said
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A society has been founded in. order to give educational faci-
lities to the students belonging to this community only".

In the appeal filed by the appellant where the question was whethe;·
he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe or not, this Court observed:
"That there are sub-tribes amongst the Goods is not
B
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 cmotoms, manners,
form of worship, and dress of the members of the Maratha
Mana community are all different from the customs manner,
c 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
Goods, specified Mana under that entry, if Manas had no
affinity at all with Goods. The appellant was uncertain
about the claim that he was making. In the nomination
D paper filed by him he claim to be a Goild (Maria}. 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
E (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 com-
munity 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
F is made prima facie indicates that in the view of the Legisla-
ture, 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

G
Tribes Order.
We therefore agree with the High Court that the appel-
lant, merely because. he belonged to the Mana community
-~
amongst the Marathas, is not eligible to stand as a candidate
for election to the Maharashtra I:egislatlve Assembly from
the reserved seat of the Armori constituency in Gadchiroli
tahsil of Chanda District."
B
The position has not since changed even though the. Schedule tO'
the Order is substituted by a new Schedule. There has only been a
·DADAJI v. SUKHDEOBABU (Venkataramiah, !.) 1147

re-arrangement of the Schedule with slight modification which has no A
-' effect on the question at issue in this case.
The High Court was, therefore, right in rejecting the case qf the
appellant that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, and in setting aside his
election to tl1e Maharashtra Legislative Assembly.
In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. B.

P.B.R. Appeal dismissed .

.,,.