R.S.Garg, J.

1. On 25.2.1999 the State of Bihar issued a Circular that Gond, Gour and Gonr be treated as Bond and each of them would be entitled to the benefits and facilities available to the members of the Scheduled Tribes. On 25.9.1991 the State Government vide its Letter No. 124 made a request to the Home Ministry, Government of India to approve the said Circular dated 25.9.1991. The Government of India vide its Letter No. 12016/70/81 SCD (R Cell) dated 25.2.1992 informed the State of Bihar that its Circular No. 11/V-26/89-Ka-25 dated 25.2.1991 was unconstitutional. The Government of India made a request to the State of Bihar to withdraw its Circular dated 25.2.1991. Sri Ram Chandra Singh and others feeling aggrieved by the said Circular dated 25.2.1991 filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 8466/91 in this High Court. Vide the judgment dated 15.7.1993 the High Court quashed the Circular dated 25.2.1991. From the records it does not appear that the judgment of the High Court delivered in C.W.J.C. No. 8466/91 was challenged or nor by the State of Bihar. From the records it appears that on 14.7.1995 vide Letter No. 80 the State of Bihar yet made another request to the Government of India for reconsideration of the entire matter. A reminder Letter No. 134 dated 4.9.1996 was also sent.

2. From the records it appears that Susri Kanta Tirky filed a public interest litigation against the State of Bihar. The said matter was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 8185/96. The said petition was decided on 25.9.1996 and the High Court of Patna directed the State Government to observe the judgment delivered in C.W.J.C. No. 8466/91 Sri Ram Chandra Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. in its letter and spirit. The State Government still desirous of enforcing its Circular dated 25.2.1991 required the Government of India by its Letter No. 182 dated 26.11.1996, to inform as to what was done at the level of the Government of India with regard to the earlier request made by the State of Bihar. On 4.3.1997 taking into consideration the pros and cons and feeling bound by the judgment of the High Court, the State issued yet another Circular No. 12/96/Ka-35 informing all concerned that the Circular dated 25.2.1991 stands revoked. It also informed all concerned that only Gond would be treated as Scheduled Tribes.

3. The dispute in the present matter in nutshell is that whether the petitioner is entitled to a certificate from the District Magistrate that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe on the State Government through the District Magistrate is entitled to make an enquiry into the eligibility of the petitioner. The State Government has raised a plea in these proceedings that Gond, Gour and Gonr were treated as Gond prior to 1991 and therefore, in discreet certificates were issued in favour of the persons belonging to all the communities and in view of the Circular dated 25.2.1991 persons belonging to Gour community and Gonr community were also treated as Gond. The State Government says that in cases of present nature the State Government and/or the District Magistrate would be within its jurisdiction to make an enquiry, looking into the eligibility of the claimant and only thereafter, issue or refuse to issue a certificate.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the stand of the State Government has come to this Court in these proceedings, inter alia, making a submission that looking to the nature of the dispute and the host of the evidence, and enquiry is not required to be made and as the petitioner is an off spring of two Gonds, no enquiry is required to be made. The petitioner says that for the reasons best known to the authorities he is being denied the certificate and this inaction and non-action on the part of the State and its officers is adversely affecting him, his future and career. The petitioner says that the documents annexed with the writ application would convincingly show that the petitioner is a Gond by birth and the effect of