JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the recommendation of the State Govt. to include "any Kuki Tribe" in the Presidential Order issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India in the list of Scheduled Tribes for the State of Manipur, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard Mr. H.N. Paonam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dijeswar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. N. Kotiswar, learned Advocate General, State of Manipur assisted by Mr. Rajkishor, learned Govt. Counsel and Mr. Ibotombi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 4 and 5. 3. The Petitioner Thadou Tribe Council North East India, herein is an association of persons formed by the Tribes belonging to Thadou Tribe of the State of Manipur. The main object of the Petitioner as pleaded in this petition, is to protect the interest of Thadou Tribes as a whole who are residing in the State of Manipur and also to foster development of Thadou Tribe including protection of right of the Tribe in all spheres. The Thadou Tribe is included as one of the Scheduled Tribes in the Presidential Order issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The State of Manipur vide communication dated 24.8.91 addressed to the Secretary Govt. of India, Ministry of Welfare, recommended for inclusion in the said Presidential Order "Any Kuki Tribe" in the list of the Scheduled Tribes for the State of Manipur. The aforesaid communication was followed by another communication dated 3.8.92 from the Secretary (TD), Govt. of Manipur wherein similar decision for inclusion of the phases/tribes "Any Kuki Tribes" in the Presidential Order has been reflected. This was again followed by a D.O. letter from Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State to the Hon'ble Union Minister of Tribal Affairs disclosing justification for inclusion of "Any Kuki Tribes" in the Presidential Order. Aggrieved by the aforesaid recommendation, the Petitioner has brought the issue before this Court by this writ Petitioner. 4. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Counsel submits that the aforesaid recommendation on the face of it is unsustainable inasmuch as there is no specific tribe in the style as "Any Kuki Tribe". In fact, there are several Kuki Tribes which also include Thadou Tribe as one of such Kuki Tribe. 4. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Counsel submits that the aforesaid recommendation on the face of it is unsustainable inasmuch as there is no specific tribe in the style as "Any Kuki Tribe". In fact, there are several Kuki Tribes which also include Thadou Tribe as one of such Kuki Tribe. It is contended that Thadou having representing all the majority of Kuki population has already been included in the Presidential Order and left nothing to be added any more and accordingly the said recommendation is not based on real facts. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the impugned recommendation is also against the observation made in the report of the Backward Class Commission constituted by the Govt. of India as regards revision of the lists of Schedule Tribes. The Commission observed in its report at Chapter-9, Clause VI to the effect that certain tribes resented being included wrongly under different regional or tribal names and was suggested that the Schedule should simply mention any Naga or Kuki or Lushai Tribe, but this as per opinion of the Commission, would not solve the problem satisfactorily. It is observed by the Commission that there are 'Hmars' the 'Paites' and others, for instance who refused to be classified amongst 'Kukis' or 'Nagas'. Though some of the 'Paites' are 'Chins', an objection was raised to their classification under the general heading of 'Chins'. In such circumstances, the Commission observed that it would be more convenient to list all the tribes by their own particular names in the hilly areas of Assam and Manipur. Objecting the aforesaid recommendation made by the State Govt. the Petitioner filed various representation before various authorities including highest authorities of the country but no fruitful result has been effected on their representations. 5. It is contended by Mr. Paonam that the Kuki is a generic name which include different tribes as mentioned in Annexure-A/8 including Thadou Tribe and in such a situation there is no necessity of any further inclusion of any Kuki Tribes and if that is done and or allowed, that might cause disintegration amongst the tribal people including their cultural heritage and ethos. Accordingly, in the aforesaid background the recommendation made by the State Govt. to include 'Any Kuki Tribe' in the Presidential Order issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India should be set aside and quashed. 6. Accordingly, in the aforesaid background the recommendation made by the State Govt. to include 'Any Kuki Tribe' in the Presidential Order issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India should be set aside and quashed. 6. Learned Advocate General, per contra. submits that the power to include any Tribe in the Presidential Order is vested with the Parliament only and after making such a law to that effect by the parliament, the Presidential Order is issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. Learned Advocate General contends that no power is vested upon the Court to interfere or to decide as to whether any Tribes is required to be included or not, in the Presidential order in terms of Article 342 of the Constitution of India. It is also argued that impugned communications are merely recommendation from the State authorities and certainly those recommendation would be subjected to various scrutiny by the appropriate authority at the appropriate level before any law to this effect is made by passing necessary enactment in the Parliament and thereafter only any change in the Presidential order would be made. It is further contended that no case has been made out by the Petitioners for interference by this Court in exercise of my power under Article226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the recommendation of the State Govt. In support of his contention the learned Advocate General has referred to the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors., reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4 and Maharshi Avadhesh v. Union of India, reported in 1994 Suppl (1) SCC 713. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 4 and 5 has also adopted the argument made by the learned Advocate General and submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 7. I have duly considered the submissions so made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 8. The crux of submission of Mr. Paonam is that the impugned recommendation made by the State Government to include 'Any Kuki Tribe' if accepted that would exclude the Thadou Tribe which is now getting benefit of such inclusion as a Schedule Tribe under the Presidential Order. 8. The crux of submission of Mr. Paonam is that the impugned recommendation made by the State Government to include 'Any Kuki Tribe' if accepted that would exclude the Thadou Tribe which is now getting benefit of such inclusion as a Schedule Tribe under the Presidential Order. But upon careful perusal of the recommendation made by the State Government including the D.O. letter from the Hon'ble Chief Minister referred to above, I do find that such apprehension of the Petitioner is well founded. The recommendation is only for inclusion of 'Any Kuki Tribe' and no recommendation is made for exclusion of 'Thadou Tribes' from the list. The tenor of the recommendation and the languages used therein in the communication do not suggest such an impression as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel. 9. In order to appreciate the submission made by Mr. Paonam that inclusion of 'Any Kuki Tribe' would result disintegration as the Kuki Tribe as a whole it would be necessary to examine the particular culture of a particular tribe which finds place in the Presidential Order; belonging to the Kuki community, and this would occasion a fact finding enquiry for which there appears to a legislative embargo under Article 342 of the Constitution of India as interpreted by the Apex Court. In this regard the reference of Milind (supra) made by the learned Advocate General has got sufficient relevance. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court dealing with such situation at paragraphs 11 and 12 held as follows: 11. By virtue of powers vested under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, the President is empowered to issue public notification for the first time specifying the castes, races or tribes or part of or groups within castes, races, or tribes which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or Union Territory, as the case may be. The language and terms of Articles 341 and 342 are identical. What is said in relation to Article 341 mutatis mutandis applies to Article 342. The laudable object of the said articles is to provide additional protection to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes having regard to social and educational backwardness from which they have been suffering since a considerable length of time. What is said in relation to Article 341 mutatis mutandis applies to Article 342. The laudable object of the said articles is to provide additional protection to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes having regard to social and educational backwardness from which they have been suffering since a considerable length of time. The words "castes" or "tribes" in the expression "Scheduled Castes" and "Scheduled Tribes" are not used in the ordinary sense of the terms but are used in the sense of the definitions contained in Articles 366(24) and 366(25). In this view, a caste is a Scheduled Caste or a Tribe is a Scheduled Tribe only if they are included in the President 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. 12. Plain language and clear terms of these articles show (1) the President under Clause (1) of the said articles may with respect to any State or Union Territory and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor, by public notification specify the castes, races or tribes or parts or group within the castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory as the case may be; (2) under Clause (2) of the said articles, a notification issued under Clause (1) cannot be varied by any subsequent notification except by law made by Parliament. In other words, Parliament alone is competent by law to include in or exclude a caste/tribe from the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe specified in notification issued under Clause (1) of the said articles. In including castes and tribes in Presidential Orders, the President is authorised to limit the notification to parts or groups within the caste or tribe depending on the educational and social backwardness. In including castes and tribes in Presidential Orders, the President is authorised to limit the notification to parts or groups within the caste or tribe depending on the educational and social backwardness. It is permissible that only parts or groups within them be specified and further to specify castes or tribes thereof in relation to parts of the State and not to the entire State on being satisfied that it was necessary to do so having regard to social and educational backwardness. The State had opportunity to present their views through Governors when consulted by the President in relation to castes or tribes, parties or groups within them either in relation to the entire State or parts of State. It appears that the object of Clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 was to keep away disputes touching whether a caste/tribe is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe or not for the purpose of the Constitution. Whether a particular caste or a tribe is Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be, within the meaning of the entries contained in the Presidential Orders issued under Clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342, is to be determined looking to them as they are. Clause (2) of the said articles does not permit any one to seek modification of the said orders by leading evidence that the Castes/Tribes (A) alone is mentioned in the Order but Castes/Tribe (B) is also a part of Caste/Tribe (A) and as such caste/Tribe (B) should be deemed to be a Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe as the case may be. It is only Parliament that is competent to amend the Orders issued under Articles341 and 342. As can be seen from the entries in the schedules pertaining to each State whenever one Caste/Tribe has another name it is so mentioned in the brackets after it in the schedules. In this view it serves no purpose to look at gazetteers or glossaries for establishing that a particular Caste/Tribe is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for the purpose of Constitution, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such in the Presidential Orders. Orders once issued under Clause (1) of the said articles, cannot be varied by subsequent order or notification even by the President except by law made by Parliament. Orders once issued under Clause (1) of the said articles, cannot be varied by subsequent order or notification even by the President except by law made by Parliament. Hence it is not possible to say that State Governments or any other authority or Courts or Tribunals are vested with any power to modify or vary the said Orders. If that be so, no inquiry is permissible and no evidence can be let in for establishing that a particular caste or part or group within tribes or tribe is included in Presidential Order if they are not expressly included in the Orders. Since any exercise or attempt to amend the Presidential Order except as provided in Clause (2) of Articles 341 and 342 would be futile, holding any inquiry or letting in any evidence in that regard is neither permissible nor useful. 10. The Apex Court also reiterated that the Court has no power to amend the Presidential Order and at paragraph 15 it is further held the Court cannot and should not expand its 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 341and 342 particularly so when in Clause (2) of the said article, it is expressly stated that he said Orders cannot be amended or varied except by law made by Parliament. It is further held that 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. The Apex Court further proceeded to hold that allowing the State Governments or Courts or other authorities or Tribunals to hold inquiry as to whether a particular caste or tribe should be considered as one to be included in the schedule of the Presidential Order, when it is not so specifically included, may lead to problems. 11. Understanding the constitutional limitation of the State Government, it appears that the State Govt. 11. Understanding the constitutional limitation of the State Government, it appears that the State Govt. has made only recommendation for inclusion of 'Any Other Kuki Tribes' in the Presidential Order and it is for the appropriate jurisdictional authority as to whether such inclusion should be made or not and certainly in the event of taking steps for inclusion the authority would apply their mind to the relevant facts before making such inclusion but that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court for scrutiny by way of judicial review. 12. Referring to the submission of Mr. Paonam that the recommendation of the State Govt. is against the order of the Backward Class Commission, we find upon reading of the relevant part of the report of the Commission as pointed by Mr. Paonam, the Govt. has the only power for recommendation and it cannot be said the State Govt. is wholly without jurisdiction in making any recommendation for inclusion of the 'Any Other Kuki Tribes'. In fact, the report of the Commission itself discloses that some relevant suggestion has been made in the report. Be that as it may, after recommendation by the State Govt. for inclusion 'Any Other Kuki Tribe' it is the Parliament who is the ultimate authority to make appropriate law, if it is so accepted, wherein necessary discussion would be made. 13. In view of the above discussion and considering the limitation of this Court in examining the issue about the feasibility of inclusion of 'Any Other Kuki Tribe' in the list of the Scheduled Tribe as recommended by the State Govt. within the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to interfere with the impugned recommendation. 14. The above discussion results into dismissal of the writ petition, which is hereby done. 15. No costs. Petition dismissed