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. 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 the question as to Whether a Particular caste, sub-caste; a group or part of tribe or sub-tribe is included in any one of the entries mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342 Particularly so when in clause (2) of the said article, it is expressly stated that the said Orders cannot be amended or varied except by law made by Parliament. The power to include or exclude, amend or alter Presidential Order is expressly and exclusively conferred on and vested with Parliament and that too by making a law in that regard." 5. According to the petitioners the decision has no bearing at all on the issue raised in this writ petition since the petitioners Were not seeking any alteration or amendment of the Presidential Order but merely au interpretation of the same. 6. 10 our Opinion the appropriate authority to decide this issue, namely, the interpretation of the Presidential Order of 1950, would be the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Schedn1ed Tribes established under Article 338 of the Constitution. We may have considered rcferring the matter to the State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as constituted by the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002, had the State Government shown any Predisposition to determine the issue as directed by this courts order in the earlier writ proceedings. 7, We accordingly direct the National Commissson to look into the matter and to submit a report before this Court after hearing all affected Parties within a period of six months from the date of service of copy of this order. The Parties are at liberty to place such material before the National Commission in addition to and over and above the material already referred to, as they may think fit in order to enable the National Commission to determine the issue correctly. 8. It is recorded that the file claimed to be the file relevant to the Presidential Order has been handed over by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Court for his inspection. The petitioners will be at liberty to take xerox copies of any portion of the file as they may consider material. 9. The matter shall not be listed before a period of six months and not to be treated as part-heard.Court Masters