Holding

A child of a Scheduled Tribe woman and a non‑tribal father does not acquire Scheduled Tribe status unless he has suffered the tribe's social, economic and educational disabilities, which the appellant did not, rendering his ST certificate invalid.

Summary

Anjan Kumar, the son of a Scheduled Tribe mother and a non‑tribal father, obtained a Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate on the basis of his mother's status and cleared the Civil Services Examination as an ST candidate, but was denied a final posting. He challenged the Union of India's refusal and the enquiry report that declared him ineligible, alleging violation of natural justice and relying on a 1975 Government circular that purported to grant ST status to children of such marriages. The Supreme Court examined whether the circular had the force of law, whether the appellant suffered the social, economic and educational disabilities required for ST status, and whether the enquiry complied with due‑process requirements. The Court held that the circular was not law under Article 13, the appellant was raised in a forward‑class environment and did not suffer tribal disabilities, and therefore could not be treated as an ST. Consequently, the ST certificate obtained by misrepresentation was quashed and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

The legal effect of the 1975 Government circular on the status of children of a Scheduled Tribe woman and a non‑tribal man.
Whether the appellant, as the off‑shoot of a tribal woman and a non‑tribal father, is entitled to Scheduled Tribe status and the benefits of reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).
Whether the enquiry conducted by the authorities violated the principles of natural justice by denying the appellant an opportunity to be heard.
Whether the appellant suffered the requisite social, economic and educational disabilities to qualify for a Scheduled Tribe certificate.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 13, s. 14, s. 15(4), s. 16(4), s. 16(4A), s. 21, s. 341, s. 342
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950

Subjects

Scheduled Tribe statustribal certificatereservationnatural justicemisrepresentationconstitutional lawArticles 13,14,15,16,21,341,342civil services examination

Judgment

-f

·~ ANJAN KUMAR A
I
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 14, 2006

[H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] B

..-.
Constitution ofIndia-Articles 13, 14, 15(4), 16(4), 16(4A), 21, 341 and
342-Appellant is the son ofa non-tribal father and a Scheduled Tribe mother-
Appellant cleared Civil Services Examination as a Scheduled Tribe candidate
but was denied posting on the ground that he does not belong to the Scheduled
c
Tribe community-Enquiry revealed that he is not a Scheduled Tribe-High
Court dismissing the Writ Petition and appeal of the appellant-Correctness
of-Held, the children of a tribal woman married to a non-tribal man are
granted Scheduled Tribe status only if they have suffered social, economical
and educational disabilities cumulatively-On facts, the marriage of the father D
and mother of the appellant was not accepted by tribal community and hence
-'I
the appellant, being brought up outside the tribal community, has not suffered
~ any such 1isabilities-Appellant obtained Schedule Tribe certificate by
misrepresentation offacts and hence the certificate is quashed-Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
E
Appellant's father and mother belong to Forward and Scheduled
Tribe communities respectively. The appellant obtained a Scheduled Tribe
certificate on the ground that his mother belongs to Scheduled Tribe
community. The appellant passed the Civil Services Examination
conducted by Union Public Service Commission as a Scheduled Tribe
F
'
___).
candidate but was denied a final posting order. The appellant filed an
Original Application before Central Administrative Tribunal seeking
direction to respondent-Union of .India to allow the appellant to join
training. The Union of India contended before the Tribunal that the
appellant cannot be treated as a Scheduled Tribe community since his
father is a non-tribal. The Tribunal directed the Union oflndia to conduct G
an enquiry to find out the status of the appellant. The Union of India
;..-{_ conducted the enquiry and submitted an enquiry report before the
Tribunal holding that the appellant does not ·belong to Scheduled Tribe
community. The Tribunal, on the basis of the enquiry report, dismissed
209 H
210 SUPREME l'OCRT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A the Original Application of the appellant. The appellant filed a Writ
Petition before High Court challenging the enquiry report holding that
the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry without giving an opportunity
to the appellant to explain his case; and that there was violation of
principles of natural justice. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
B The Letters Patent Appeal filed before the High Court by the appellant
was also dismissed .

.In appeal to the Court, the appellant contended that the enquiry
officer violated the principles of natural justice by not giving an
opportunity to him to explain his case during the enquiry; that there .is a
C Central Government Circular issued in the year 1975 holding that when
a Scheduled Tribe woman marries a non-Scheduled Tribe man, the
children from such marriage may be treated as members of the Scheduled
Tribe community; that the marriage of the father and mother of the
appellant was approved and accepted by he Scheduled Tribe community
and hence he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community.
D
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I.I. The Government oflndia circulars, issued from time to
time, are not law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of
India and hence would be of no assistance to the appellant on the face of
E the Constitutional provisions. [214-C)

1.2. The marriage of the appellant's father and mother was a court
marriage performed outside the village. Ordinarily, court marriage is
performed when either of the parents of bride or bridegroom or the
community of the village objects to such marriage. In such a situation,
F the bride or the bridegroom suffers the wrath of the community of the
village and runs the risk of being ostracised or ex-wmmunicated from the
village community. Therefore, there \s no question of such marriage being
accepted by the village community. The appellant, who was born and
brought up in the environment forward community, did not suffer any
G disability from the society to which he belonged. A casual visit to the
relative in other village would not provide the status of permanent resident
of the village or acceptance by the village community as a member of the
tribal community. [214-D-E; 215-B-CI

State of Kera/av. Chandramohanan, [2004] 3 SCC 429, referred to.
H
·(

ANJAN KUMAR v. U.0.L 211
·~ 1.3. The object of Articles 341, 342, 15(4), 16(4) and 16(4A) of the, A
-(
Constitution of India is to provide preferential treatment for the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes having regard to the economic and
educational backwardness and other disabilities wherefrom they suffer.
So also considering the typical characteristic of the tribal including a
common name, a contiguous territory, a relatively uniform culture,
simplistic way of life and a tradition of common descent, the
B
transplantation of the outsiders as members of the tribe or community
·-' may dilute their way of life apart from such persons do not suffer any
disabilities. Therefore, the condition precedent for a person to be brought
within the purview of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950,
one must belong to a tribe and suffer disabilities wherefrom they belong. c
[216-B-C)

Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addi. Commnr. Tribal Development, (1994) 6
SCC 241; Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of A.P. v. Laveti Giri, [1995) 4
SCC 32; Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary, [2003) 8 SCC 204 and Valsamma
Paul (Mrs.) v. Cochin University and Ors .. (1996) 3 SCC 545, referred to. D

-'I 1.4. The condition precedent for granting tribe certificate being that
one must suffer disabilities wherefrom one belongs. The offshoots of the
T
wedlock of a tribal woman married to a non-tribal husband cannot claim
Scheduled Tribe status. The reason being such offshoot was brought up
E
in the atmosphere of Forward Class and he is not subjected to any
disability. A person not belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe claiming himself to be a member of such caste by procuring a bogus
caste certificate is a fraud under the Constitution of India. The impact of
procuring fake/bogus caste certificate and obtaining appointment/
admission from the reserved quota will have far-reaching grave F
consequences. The meritorious reserved candidate may be deprived of
.-J,
reserved category for whom the post is reserved. The reserved post will
go into the hands of non-deserving candidate and in such cases it would
be violative of the mandate of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Certificate is not a
G
bounty to be distributed. To sustain the claim, one must show that he/she
suffered disabilities - socially, economically and educationally
,..1, cumulatively. The concerned authority, before whom such claim is made,
is duty bound to satisfy itself that the applicant suffered disabilities socially,
economically and educationally before such certificate is issued. Any
. concerned authority issuing such certificates in a routine manner would H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A be committing the dereliction of Constitutional duty. The tribal certificate
procured by the appellant by misrepresenti-tio11 of the facts is quashed
and set aside. [218-G-H; 219-A-D]

CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Apreal No. 6445 of 2000.

B From the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.1999 of Madhya Pradesh
High Court in LP.A. No. 138 of 1999.

M.N. Krishnamani, Rana Ranjit Singh and Samyajit Pani for the
Appellant.

C Yikas Singh, ASG, Ashish Kumar, V.K. Verma and P. Parmeswaran
for the Respondents.

Atul Jha, Nirmal \1ittal, D.K. Sinha, Rajesh Srivastava and B.S. Banthia
for the State of Chhattisgarh.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H.K. SEMA, J. The appellant Shri Anjan Kumar is the offshoot of the
wedlock between Shri Lakshmi Kant Sahay, District Gaya in the State of
...
Bihar and Smt. Angela Tigga who belongs to Scheduled Tribe community of
Oraon Tribe, village Pondi Potkona, Distt./Division Raigarh, State of Madhya
E Pradesh. By an order dated 7th August, I 992 Scheduled Tribe certificate was
issued to the appellant by S.D.M., Gaya on the ground that the mother of the
appellant Smt. Angela Tigga belongs to Oraon tribe which is recognised as
a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant appeared
before the Civil Service Examination in I 991 conducted by the Union Public
Service Commission claiming himself to be the Scheduled Tribe candidate.
F In the said examination he had passed the written test but could not qualify
in the interview. He again appeared in the Civil Service Examination conducted
by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1992 and passed the
written examination. In 1993 he was called for interview. The result of the
successful candidates was published and he stood at 759th rank in order of
G merit. He was also allotted Indian Information Service Grade A. However,
the appellant did not receive any final posting order, which had resulted in
filing many representations to the Union of India. In one of representations
dated 14th September, 1994 the appellant also stated that he belongs to
Scheduled Tribe category and his sub-caste is Oraon.

H Having failed to receive any positive response from the respondents, he
f
ANJAN KUMAR v. U.O.L [H.K. SEMA, J.] 213

filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, A
1 Principal Bench, New Delhi being O.A. No. 2291 of 1994, inter a/ia, seeking
direction to the Union of India to allow the appellant to join training. In
response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the Union of India, by its letter
dated 9th November, 1994, conveyed to the Tribunal that the appellant has
not been brought up in tribal environment and that his father is a non-tribal
and, therefore, he cannot be treated as a Scheduled Tribe. Further, the Union
B
of India, as directed by the Tribunal, conducted the enquiry into the question
whether the appellant belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and the enquiry
was conducted by the Additional District Collector, Jaispurnagar, District
Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh and the report was submitted on 26th June, 1995.
The enquiry report obviously was against the appellant. After examining the c
enquiry report submitted as aforestated, the Tribunal ultimately dismissed the
Original Application No. 2291 of1994 by order dated 12th December, 1995.
Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed a Writ Petition being C.W.P No. 647
of 1997 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, inter alia,
challenging the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer on the
allegation of violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no D
opportunity of hearing had been accorded to the appellant. The learned single
.......
Judge of the High Court after perusing the records and the enquiry report,
r submitted by tlie enquiry officer, dismissed the Writ Petition by order dated ,,
22nd January, 1999. The appellant thereafter carried an unsuccessful appeal
before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 138 of 1999, which was dismissed E
by the L.P.A. bench on 3rd December, 1999. Hence, the present appeal by
special leave.

We have heard the parties at length.

The sole question calls for determination in this appeal is, as to whether F
the offshoot of the tribal woman married to non-tribal husband could claim
status of Scheduled Tribe and on the basis of which the Scheduled Tribe
certificate could be given.

It is contended by Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel that
the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry behind the back of the appellant G
and therefore, the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench erred
in law dismissing the petition/appeal by placing reliance on the enquiry report
.-1. and the material collected during the course of the enquiry. He further
contended that the marriageOfmother of the appellant (Scheduled Tribe) and
the father of the appellant (Kayastha) has beeti approved and accepted by the
H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20061 2 S.C.R.

A community of the village and the appellant has been transplanted into the
Tribal community and therefore, he was entitled to the Scheduled Tribe
certificate which was correctly granted. In this connection, he has referred to
a Circular dated 4th March, 1975 issued by the Government of India, Ministry
of Home Affairs on the subject 'Status of children belonging to the couple
B one of whom belongs to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes'. He particularly
referred to the portion when a Scheduled Tribe woman marries a non-
Scheduled Tribe man, the children from such marriage may be treated as
members of the Scheduled Tribe community, if the marriage is accepted by
the community and the children are treated as members of their own
community. Such Circulars issued from time to time, being not law within
-
C the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India, it would be of no
assistance to the appellant on the face of the Constitutional provisions. Further,
the facts of this case are however different with the facts in which the circular
was sought to be clarified.

Undisputedly, the marriage of the appellant's mother (tribal woman) to
D one Lakshmi Kant Sahay (Kayastha) was a court marriage performed outside
the village. Ordinarily, the court marriage is performed when either of the
parents of bride or bridegroom or the community of the village objects to
such marriage. In such a situation, the bride or the bridegroom suffers the
wrath of the community of the village and runs the risk of being ostracised
E or ex-communicated from the village community. Therefore, there is no
question of such marriage being accepted by the village community. The
situation will, however, stand on different footing in a case where a tribal
man marries a non-tribal woman (Forward Class) then the offshoots of such
wedlock would obviously attain the tribal status. However, the woman (if she
belongs to forward class) cannot automatically attain the status of tribal unless
F she has been accepted by the community as one of them, observed all rituals,
customs and traditions which have been practiced by the tribals from time
.....
immemorial and accepted by the community of the village as a member of
tribal society for the purpose of social relations with the village community.
Such acceptance must be by the village community by a resolution and such
G resolution must be entered in the Village Register kept for the purpose. Often
than not, such acceptance is preceded by feast/rituals performed by the parties
where the elders of the village community participated. However, acceptance
of the marriage by the community itself would not entitle the woman (Forward
•'
class) to claim the appointment to the post reserved for the reserved category.
It would be incongruous to suggest that the tribal woman, who suffered
H disabilities, would be able to compete with the woman (Forward class) who
ANJAN KUMAR v. U.0.1. [H.K. SEMA, .I.] 215
does not suffer disabilities wherefrom she belongs but by reason of marriage A
to tr(bal husband and such marriage is accepted by the community would
entitle he,r for appointment to the post reserved for the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Trihes. It would be a negation of Constitutional goal.

It is not disputed that the couple performed court marriage outside the
village; settled down in Gaya and their son, the appellant also born an<l B
brought up in the environment of forward community did not suffer any
disability from the society to which he belonged. Mr. Krishnamani, learned
senior counsel contended that the appellant used to visit the village during
recess/holidays and there was cordial relationship between the appellant and
the village community, which would amount the acceptance of the appellant C
by the village community. By no stretch of imagination, a casual visit to the
relative in other village would provide the status of permanent resident of the
village or acceptance by the village community as a member of the tribal
community.

The 'tribe' has been characterized by Dr. Gupta, Jai Prakash in The D
Customary Laws of the Munda & the Oraon quoted by this Court in State of
Kera/a v. Chandramohanan, [2004] 3 SCC 429 at 432 as under:
.,
"Tribe has been defined as a social group of a simple kind, the
members of which speak common dialect, have a single government
and act together for such common purposes as warfare. Other typical E
characteristics include a common name, a contiguous territory, a
relatively uniform culture or way of life and a tradition of common
descent. Tribes are usually composed of a number of local communities
e.g. bands, villages or neighbourhoods and are often aggregated in
clusters of a higher order called nations. The term is seldom applied F
_..,
\
to societies that have achieved a strictly territorial organization in
large States but is usually confined to groups whose unity is based
primarily upon a sense of extended kinship ties though it' is no longer
used for kin groups in the strict sense, such as clans."

Bhowmik, K.L. in Tribal India: a profile in India Ethnology G
observed:

"Tribe in the Dictionary of Anthropology is defined as 'a social
group, usually with a definite area, dialect, cultural homogeneity and
unifying social organization. It may include several subgroups, such
as sibs or villages. A tribe ordinarily has a leader and may have a H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A common ancestor, as well as patron deity. The families or small
communities making up the tribe are linked through economic, social,
religious, family or blood ties'."

The object of Articles 341, 342, 15(4), 16(4) and 16(4A) is to provide
preferential treatment for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes having
B regard to the economic and educational backwardness and other disabilities
wherefrom they suffer. So also considering the typical characteristic of the
tribal including a common name, a contiguous Territory, a relatively uniform
culture, simplistic way of life and a tradition of common descent, the
transplantation of the outsiders as members of the tribe or community may
C dilute their way of life apart from such persons do not suffer any disabilities.
Therefore, the condition precedent for a person to be brought within the
purview of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, one must belong
to a tribe and suffer disabilities wherefrom they belong.

In Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl.Commnr. Tribal Development, (1994)
D 6 sec 241 this Court denounced the practice of persons claiming benefits
conferred on STs by producing fake, false and fraudulent certificates:

"13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly
obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has
the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
E Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits
conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are
also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to
office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The
ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory
tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny
F Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational
institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many
a time the student may be a min or. It is the parent or the guardian
who may play fraud claiming false status certificate."

G Similar view was reiterated in Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of A.P.
v. Laveti Giri, [ 1995] 4 SCC 32. In the case of Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary,
[2003] 8 SCC 204 thi~ Court at page 221 in para 39 observed as under:-

"39. A person in fact not belonging to the Scheduled Caste, if
claims himself to be a member thereof by procuring a bogus caste
H certificate, would be committing fraud on the Constitution. No court
ANJAN KUMAR v. U.0.1. [H.K. SEMA. J.] 217

of law can encourage commission of such fraud." A
Further in Punit Rai's, case (supra) in paragraph 27, this Court observed
that:

"27. The caste system in India is ingrained in the Indian mind. A
person, in the absence of any statutory law, would inherit his caste B
from his father and not his mother even in a case of intercaste
marriage."

In the case of Valsamma Paul (Mrs.) v. Cochin University and Ors.,
[1996] 3 SCC 545 this Court again examined the entire gamut and came to
the conclusion that the condition precedent for acquiring Scheduled Tribes C
Certificate one must suffer the disabilities - Socially, Economically and
Educationally. The facts of that case are important and may be recited in a
nutshell. Two posts of Lecturers in Law Department of Cochin University
were notified for recruitment, one of which was reserved for Latin Catholics
(Backward Class Fishermen). The appellant was a Syrian Catholic (a Forward
Class). She married to Latin Catholic (Backward Class Fishermen) and had D
applied for selection as a reserved candidate. The University selected her on
that basis and accordingly appointed her against the reserved post. Her
appointment was questioned by another candidate by filing a writ petition
praying for a direction to the University to appoint the petitioner in place of
the appellant. The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition. On appeal E
being filed before the Division Bench concerning the important question of
law a reference was made to the Full Bench. The Full Bench held that though
the appellant was married according to the Canon Law, the appellant being
a Syrian Catholic by birth (Forward Class), by marriage with the Latin Catholic
(Backward Class Fishermen) is not member of that Class nor can she claim
the status as a Backward Class by marriage. On an appeal being preferred F
before this Court against the decision of the Full- Bench this Court after
referring to various decisions of this Court upheld the Judgment of the Full
Bench. This Court held in paragraphs 33 and 34 as under:

"33. However, the question is: Whether a lady marrying a G
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or OBC citizen, or one transplanted
by adoption or an other voluntary act, ipso facto, becomes entitled to
claim reservation under Article 15(4) or 16(4), as the case may be?
It is seen that Dalits and Tribes suffered social and economic
disabilities recognized by Articles 17 and 15(2). Consequently, they
became socially, culturally and educationally backward; the OBCs H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 2 S.C.R.

A also suffered social and educational backwardness. The object of
reservation is to remove these handicaps, disadvantages, sufferings
and restrictions to which the members of the Dalits or Tribes or
OBCs were subjected and was sought to bring them in the mainstream
of the nations's life by providing them opportunities and facilities.

B 34. In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde,
[ 1995] Supp 2 SCC 549 and R.. Chandevarappa v. State of Karnataka,
[I 995] 6 SCC 309 this Court had held that economic empowerment
is a fundamental right to the poor and the State is enjoined under
Articles 15(3), 46 and 39 to provide them opportunities. Thus,
education, employment and economic empowerment are some of the
c programmes the State has evolved and also provided reservation in
admission into educational institutions, or in case of other economic
benefits under Articles 15(4) and 46, or in appointment to an office
or a post under the State under Article 16(4). Therefore, when a
member is transplanted into the Dal its, Tribes and OBCs, he/she must
D of necessity also have had undergone the same handicaps, and must
have been subjected to the same disabilities, disadvantages, indignities
or sufferings so as to entitle the candidate to avail the facility of
reservation. A candidate who had the advantageous start in life being
born in Forward Caste and had march of advantageous life but is
transplanted in Backward Caste by adoption or marriage or conversion,
E does not become eligible to the benefit of reservation either under
Article 15(4) or 16(4), as the case may be. Acquisition of the status
of Scheduled Caste etc. by voluntary mobility into these categories
would play fraud on the Constitution, and would frustrate the benign
constitutional policy under Articles 15(4) and 16( 4) of the
F Constitution."

In view of the catena of decisions of this Court, the questions raised
before us are no more res integra. The condition precedent for granting tribe
certificate being that.one must suffer disabilities wherefrom one belongs. The
offshoots of the wedlock of a tribal woman married to a non-tribal husband
G - Forward Class (Kayastha in the present case) cannot claim Scheduled Tribe
status. The reason being such offshoot was brought up in the atmosphere of
Forward Class and he is not subjected to any disability. A person not belonging
to the Scheduled Castes _or Scheduled Tribes claiming himself to be a member
of such caste by procuring a bogus caste certificate is a fraud under the
H Constitution of India. The impact of procuring fake/bogus caste certificate
ANJAN KUMAR v. U.0.1. [H.K. SEMA . .1.) 219

'i,., and obtaining appointment/admission from the reserved quota will have far- A
reaching grave consequences. The meritorious reserved candidate may be
deprived of reserved category for whom the post is reserved. The reserved
post will go into the hands of non-deserving candidate and in such cases it
would be violative of the mandate of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of India.
B
The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Certificate is not a bounty
to be distributed. To sustain the claim, one must show that he/she suffered
disabilities - socially, economically and educationally cumulatively. The
concerned authority, before whom such claim is made, is duty bound to
satisfy itself that the applicant suffered disabilities socially, economically and C
educationally before such certificate is issued. Any concerned authority issuing
such certificates in a routine manner would be committing the dereliction of
Constitutional duty.

•
In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and it deserves to be
'
--'\ dismissed with costs. The tribal certificate dated 7th August, 1992 procured D
by the appellant by misrepresentation of the facts is quashed and set aside .
..\
The appeal is dismissed with costs.

B.S . Appeal dismissed.

•..

-