ORDER 1. This is an appeal under Section l16-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. The undisputed facts, briefly stated, are that Virajpet Constituency No. 126 went to polls for electing Member of the Legislative Assembly in the e month of October 1999. The result of the election was declared on 6-101999. Respondent 1 was declared elected. There were in all five candidates in the election fray. None of the other four candidates, who lost the election, put in issue the result of the election. However, the appellant, who is a registered voter of the constituency, filed an election petition laying challenge to the election of Respondent 1. 3. Admittedly, the constituency was one reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The constituency falls in Coorg District. According to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended by Act 108 of 1976 in the State of Kamataka, vide Entry 35 of the Schedule, "Maratha (Coorg District)" is a Scheduled Tribe. The plea taken by the petitioner in his writ petition was that Maratha in the State of Maharashtra are Hindi-speaking and are a general community and what is a Scheduled Tribe in Coorg District is "Martha" and that is what the Presidential Order intends and that is how it should be read. 4. On the petitioner's own showing Respondent 1 is a Maratha, also residing in Coorg District. She was issued a certificate Ext. P-16 dated 4-6-1988 by the Tahsildar certifying that Respondent 1 was a Maratha (in h Coorg District) and belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. 5. It is trite law that an inquiry directed towards ascertaining what is intended by a particular entry in the Presidential Order beyond what is stated a specifically therein is not permissible. Once it is admitted that Respondent 1 is a Maratha residing in Coorg District, she would surely be covered by the relevant entry and be treated as a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. The learned Designated Election Judge could not have entered into an inquiry into what is intended by the Presidential Order and what kinds of Marathas are to be included therein and whether the entry should be so read b as to be confined to Martha only. 6. The learned Designated Election Judge could not have entered into an inquiry into what is intended by the Presidential Order and what kinds of Marathas are to be included therein and whether the entry should be so read b as to be confined to Martha only. 6. On the pleadings and material available, the learned Designated Election Judge has rightly held that Respondent 1 was not disqualified to be chosen as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. No other plea was raised. 7. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that one Shri S.P. Mahadevappa, a voter of the constituency has filed a civil suit c raising very many pleas disputing the status of Respondent 1 to the extent whether she is a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe or not. As to the effect of the judgment of the learned Designated Election Judge, which is impugned before us, on such pending suit, the High Court has already made an observation vide para 24 of the judgment. We need not say anything more. 8. So far as the present appeal is concerned, it is held to be devoid of any d merit and liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgment of the High Court is maintained. No order as to the costs in this Court.