ORDER

1. The dispute in this writ petition arises from an interpretation of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 issued under Article 342 of the Constitution in which "Maleru" has been described as a tribe or tribal community in para 2 of that Order. The question which has been raised is whether the tribe "Maaleru" and "Maleru" are the same. According to the petitioners there is no difference whatsoever between the two and that both were merely different spellings describing the same community. In support of the petitioners arguments they have relied upon the 1901 and 1911 census reports as well as authoritative textbooks such as Castes and Tribes of Southern India (Vol. IV) by Edgar Thurston as also the State Governments Report of the Second Backward Classes Commission, 1986, Vol. III in support of this submission.

2. According to the State Government there is a distinction between "Maaleru" and "Maleru" communities. According to the State Government the community represented by the petitioners was wrongly seeking to obtain the benefit of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

3. This dispute had earlier been raised by means of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution which was disposed of by an order of this Court dated 6-9-1989. That writ petition had been filed by persons against whom departmental and criminal proceedings had been taken on the ground that they had wrongly taken the benefit of the entry "Maleru" in the Presidential Order. In disposing of the writ petition this Court noted that on 23-1-1986 the State of Karnataka had passed an order giving the same benefits to persons belonging, inter alia, to "Maaleru" as were available to "Maleru". Departmental and criminal proceedings were stayed and educational concessions claimed by the "Maaleru" were not disturbed. In disposing of the first writ petition this Court was of the view that the matter had to be examined and the appropriate recommendation made by the State Government to the Central Government. Until the investigation was so carried out and recommendations were made the Court stayed criminal proceedings and departmental action and directed the State of Karnataka to withdraw all such proceedings, civil or departmental, and to expedite the process contemplated in their order dated 23-1-1986. It was made clear that only when a positive conclusion was reached depending upon the exigencies of the Constitution, the Government could take such action as they considered appropriate. The State of Karnataka was directed to take action pursuant to its own decision as recorded in the order dated 23-1-1986, within a period of four months.

4. The four months have long since lapsed. Although a Committee was constituted to carry out the investigation, no final decision has been taken by the Committee till date. According to the State Government no action could be taken by the Committee so constituted because of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind1 in which this Court has held in para 11: (SCC p. 15)

"[A] caste is a Scheduled Caste or a tribe is a Scheduled Tribe only if they are included in the Presidents Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342 for the purpose of the Constitution. Exercising the powers vested in him, the President has issued the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Subsequently, some orders were issued under the said articles in relation to Union Territories and other States and there have been certain amendments in relation to Orders issued, by Amendment Acts passed by Parliament." and in para 15: (SCC p. 18)

States have no power to amend Presidential Orders. Consequently, a party in power or the Government of the day in a State is relieved from the pressure or burden of tinkering with the Presidential Orders either to gain popularity or secure votes .... courts cannot and should not expand jurisdiction to deal with