Honble SHETHNA, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (2). Apart from the fact that this petition was required to be dismissed solely on the ground that the State of Rajasthan is not impleaded as party respondent in this petition, this petition is also required to be dismissed on various other grounds. (3). Going through the impugned order at Annex.6 passed by the Board of Revenue, it is clear that the land in question was of Scheduled Caste Person, therefore, no suit could have been decreed. There is a clear ban on transfer of land belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe persons under Sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The point in question is squarely covered against the petitioner by the judgment of this Court dated 11.1.1999 delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 57/99. (4). However, the submission of Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the decree passed in suit merged in the appellate order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and being the Revenue Appellate Authority not subordinate to the Collector, the Collector could not have simply made the reference against the decree passed by the S.D.O. It must be stated that this submission of Mr. Sharma has no substance because the appeal was dismissed only on the ground of limitation, therefore, it cannot be said that the decree passed by the trial court was confirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on merits. (5). Before parting, I must state that belated application was filed to implead the State of Rajasthan as one of the party respondents and then to decide the matter. However, it is well settled law that if the petition is not maintainable as it is, then it has to be dismissed straightway. Law is very well settled that writ of certiorari can only be issued provided the State of Rajasthan is there as party respondent, otherwise not. (6). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.