ORDER : Ashok Bhan, J. The short point in this appeal and the writ petitions is as to whether "Lohara" is a Scheduled Tribe or not in the States of Bihar and Jharkhand. In the Hindi version of the Presidential Order, "Lohar" has been mentioned as a Scheduled Tribe whereas in the English version, "Lohara" and "Lohra" have been mentioned as Scheduled Tribes. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Shambhoo Nath v. Union of India, CA No. 4631 of 1990 decided on 12-9-1990 held that "Lohar" is a Scheduled Tribe from 1976 onwards. In Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar, (1996) 3 SCC 576 another Bench of three Judges after taking into consideration the earlier judgment of this Court in Shambhoo Nath case 1 held that "Lohara" was not a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Bihar and the translation in Hindi was incorrect. It was also stated that Shambhoo Nath case, CA No. 4631 of 1990 decided on 12-9-1990 was based on concession by the counsel for the Union of India. Another Bench of two Judges in Vinay Prakash v. State of Bihar, (1997) 3 SCC 406 : JT (1997) 3 SC 206 took the same view as in Nityanand Sharma case, (1996) 3 SCC 576 . 2. The appellant who is a "Lohara" filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue caste certificate in the prescribed form to the effect that he is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge following the decision of this Court in Nityanand Sharma case, Nityanand Sharma case, (1996) 3 SCC 576 . Letters patent appeal against the order of the Single Judge was summarily dismissed relying upon the same judgment. 3. This Court granted leave in the special leave petition. Writ Petitions Nos. 488 of 2000 and 173 of 2002 were filed raising the same points in which the rule was issued and the writ petitions were ordered to be heard with the appeal. 4. Union of India is not a party in CA No. 5483 of 2000. UPSC has been made a party and is duly represented. In the writ petitions, Union of India has been made a party-respondent but none has appeared on its behalf. 5. 4. Union of India is not a party in CA No. 5483 of 2000. UPSC has been made a party and is duly represented. In the writ petitions, Union of India has been made a party-respondent but none has appeared on its behalf. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 488 of 2000, the Union of India has taken the stand in para 6 that "Lohar" both pronounced in Hindi and English was never included in the ST list of Bihar and the Hindi version "Lohar" for "Lohara" is only a misprint. 6. We would like the Union of India to clarify on what basis the Union of India has taken the stand that the word "Lohar" in the Hindi version is a misprint and, if so, what steps they intend to take in this regard. 7. Adjourned by five weeks. 8. We would request Mr G.E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India, to assist us in this case on the adjourned date of hearing.