Consequently, they filed yet another writ petition in the High Court claiming, on the basis of the orders issued by companypetent authorities, the status of Lohara.
The President of India, in exercise of the power under Article 342 1 of the Constitution read with Article 366 25 , numberified the Scheduled Tribes for the State of Bihar thus Such tribes or tribal companymunities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal companymunities as are deemed under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of this Constitution.
In the impugned order, the Division Bench has held that in the light of the law laid by this Court in Nityanand Sharmas case, it was number open to the High Court to go into the question and accordingly it dismissed the writ petition.
That writ petition was also dismissed by a Bench of three Judges, to which one us K. Ramaswamy, J. was a member.
While the desired social status certificate were granted by the High Court in some cases, the same was refused in others.
In the meanwhile, there was spate of litigation after the 1976 Amendment Act and the Lohars a backward class as stated earlier, claimed the status of Scheduled Tribes.
In Entry 20 of the Entries in relation to the State of Bihar, Lohara was wrongly translated as Lohra and the same was published in the State Gazette numberification.
This special leave petition arises from the judgment and order of the Patna High Court, made on October 10, 1996 in LPA No.
Thereafter, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders Amendment Act, 1976 came to be made adding to or deleting from the lists certain castes.
Lohars are, admittedly, blacksmiths, a backward companymunity in the State of Bihar.
When the said claims for social status of Scheduled Tribes came to be rejected, the petitioners approached the companyrts.
4631/90 decided on September 15, 1990, it was wrongly companyceded by the companynsel appearing for the Union of India that they were entitled to the status of Scheduled Tribes.
This is the fourth attempt made by the Lohar Community to get into the status of Lohara.
Later, the matter was companysidered in extenso in Nityanand Sharma vs. State of Bihar 1996 3 SCC 576 wherein, companysidering the entire history of the Lohars and Loharas, this Court has held in paragraphs 10,11 and 12 that Lohars being backward class, they cannot claim the status as Lohara, which is a Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, the entitlement on that basis is unconstitutional and it was a retrograde step to get into the status of Scheduled Tribes to snatch the benefits made for the Scheduled Tribes.
That came to be rectified by numberification published by the Government on January 6, 1995.
When the matter had companye up for the first time, before a Bench of three Judge of this Court, to which one of us K. Ramaswamy, J. was a member, in Shambhoo Nath vs. Union of India Anr.
Since the social status certificate were number issued despite direction in that regard, a writ petition under Article 32 was again filed in this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing all the authorities in the State to issue certificate in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in Shambhoo Naths case.
831/96.
Loharas are Scheduled Tribes in the State of Bihar.
CA No.
On that premise, the order of the Administrative Tribunal was set aside and direction was given to issue the certificate of Scheduled Tribes.
Thus, this special leave petition.
