ORDER P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 519 of 2004. The petitioner-appellant applied for a dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. The dealership was reserved for a person, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. The appellant alongwith his application for dealership, enclosed a caste, certificate, showing that he was a Gond. It is seen that the certificate issued to him in that behalf was cancelled by the Commissioner. The appellant challenged that before this Court. . This Court quashed the order of Commissioner on the ground that principle of natural justice was violated and directed the Commissioner to take a fresh decision on the question of the status of the appellant. This Court directed the Commissioner to decide whether the appellant belongs to a Scheduled Tribe or not. Pursuant to that direction, the Commissioner considered the question. He ultimately ended-up, by passing an order to the effect, that since the appellant belongs to Si wan in the State of Bihar and since the relevant records relating to his family were not available in Saraikela, it was not possible for him to decide the question whether the appellant belonged to the Gond community, which of course is a Scheduled Tribe. He, therefore, directed the appellant to approach the concerned authority in Siwan and get the necessary certificate in that behalf. Feeling aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed the writ petition in this Court. 2. The learned single Judge declined to interfere, since he found that disputed facts were involved and on the materials available, the question could not be decided and therefore it is not a question that has to be decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Obviously, pursuant to an earlier direction of this Court, the question whether the appellant belonged to a Scheduled Tribe has to be considered. The learned single Judge, therefore, reserved liberty in the appellant to move the appropriate forum indicated in the impugned order of the writ petition for the purpose of establishing his claim that he belongs to the Gond community. This judgment of the learned single Judge is challenged herein. 4. Strictly speaking, it may be correct to say that the Commissioner, who was directed to decide the question, has not decided the same. This judgment of the learned single Judge is challenged herein. 4. Strictly speaking, it may be correct to say that the Commissioner, who was directed to decide the question, has not decided the same. Obviously, the Commissioner was not satisfied on the materials about the claim of the appellant, but in view of the circumstances pointed out by the petitioner- appellant, the Commissioner . directed the appellant to approach the concerned, authority in Siwan and get the necessary certificate in that behalf from his original place of birth. In a true sense, the Commissioner has acted properly and has ensured that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant on the basis of non-availability of all the relevant records within his jurisdiction. In this situation, we are satisfied that the Commissioner was justified in adopting the course he did and the learned single Judge was justified in refusing to interfere. 5. Since, the question whether the appellant belongs to the Gond community has to be decided by the appropriate authority, we do not think it proper to discuss the merits of the case. However, we decline to interfere and dismiss this appeal.