ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a prayer for issuance of direction to respondent No.3 to issue a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner and also to quash the order dated 10-5-2007 (Annexure P/36) by which the prayer of the petitioner for grant of permanent caste certificate has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case as reflected from record are that the petitioner had submitted an application before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ respondent No.3 on 19-10-2004 for grant of Schedule Caste Certificate to his son Sunil Daryani as he belongs to Suryavanshi caste which is Scheduled Caste on the count that his father and grand-father belong to Scheduled Caste. It is further reflected from record that the petitioner for obtaining the above caste certificate has produced certain documents in support of his claim. The petitioner has also annexed caste certificate issued by Ramji Ram, Lok Sabha member in favour of the petitioner’s father Dr. Atmaram Daryani (Annexure P/8). It is also case of the petitioner that the petitioner approached many times to the office of SDO, Revenue – respondent No.3 for issuance of caste certificate, but it has not issued in his favour, therefore, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 24-7-2005 to respondent No.3 for issuing the caste certificate in favour of petitioner’s son, thereafter the petitioner made a complaint to the Chief Secretary of the State Government regarding non-compliance of the order, but no action has been taken therefore, the petitioner has filed a petition bearing Writ Petition No. 5317 of 2005 before this Court for issuance of a direction to issue caste certificate as the proceedings are pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Sakti and respondent No.4. 3. It has also been contended that this court vide its order dated 9-11-2005 directed the respondents No.3 and 4 to decide the Revenue case and pass an order in accordance with law. This order has not been complied with, therefore, the petitioner has filed a Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 16 of 2006, wherein this court had issued notice to the respondents on 3-2-2006. This order has not been complied with, therefore, the petitioner has filed a Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 16 of 2006, wherein this court had issued notice to the respondents on 3-2-2006. During pendency of the contempt petition, the respondents have passed the order on 15.12.2005 by recording its finding that the petitioner is resident of Sindh Provinces prior to 1950 as such he does not belong to Schedule Caste of State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, he is not entitled to get caste certificate. The respondent while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of caste certificate has taken into consideration the circular dated 28-7-2003 issued by the General Administration Department of Chhattisgarh Govt. Raipur, according to which the petitioner was not a resident prior to 1950 of Chhattisgarh State, therefore, caste certificate cannot be issued to him. It is also contended that this Court vide order dated 7-5-2007 in contempt (civil) petition No.16/2006 directed the respondents that the respondents after hearing the petitioner shall pass an appropriate order as directed by this court in writ petition No 5371 of 2005 dated 9-11-2005 without being influenced by any of the orders passed earlier. 4. It is also contended that this Court vide order dated 7-5-2007 in contempt (civil) petition No.16/2006 directed the respondents that the respondents after hearing the petitioner shall pass an appropriate order as directed by this court in writ petition No 5371 of 2005 dated 9-11-2005 without being influenced by any of the orders passed earlier. 4. The respondent has passed the order on 10-5-2007 (Annexure P/35) by recording its finding which reads as under : ^^;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk jketh jke] laln lnL; }kjk izLrqr izek.k&i= ds voyksdu ls ik;k x;k fd vkosnd ds firk Jh vkRek jke vk- Jh ukudjke fuoklh lDrh dks tkjh lwjtoa'kh (Suraj-Bansi) fy[kk x;k gS] tcdh Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk tkjh lwph esa Surjyabanshi vf/klwfpr gSA vr% Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk tkjh lwph ,oa ekuuh; laln }kjk tkjh izek.k&i= esa 'kCnksa esa fHkUurk gS] lkFk gh lafo/kku dh /kkjk 342 ¼1½ rFkk 341 ¼1½ ds varxZr vuqlwfpr tu tkfr @ vuqlwfpr tkfr dh ?kks"k.kkvksa ds ckjs esa fo'ks"k /;ku nsus ;ksX; gS fd jk"Vªifr ds vkns'k ls tkjh lwph esa lfEefyr uke dh tkfr@lewg@oxZ dks gh tu tkfr@tkfr ekuk tkosxk vFkkZr mlds i;kZ;okph ;k leukFkhZ ;k vU; izdkj ds uke ls Hkh ekU;rk ugha gksxhA izdj.k esa izLrqr mijksDr rF;ksa ds foospuk ls Li"V gS fd vkosnd@;kfpdkdrkZ dh tkfr fla/k izkar esa lw;Zoa'kh ¼vuqlwfpr tkfr½ ds :i esa vf/klwfpr gS] ckcr dksbZ izekf.kr nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k x;k gS] lkFk gh vkosnd o"kZ 1950 vFkok mlds iwoZ bl jkT; esa vk;s gS ds laca/k esa Hkh dksbZ izekf.kr nLrkost is'k ugha fd;s gS] bl izdkj vkosnd viuh tkfr lw;Zoa'kh ¼vuqlwfpr tkfr½ dks fl) djus esa vlQy jgs gSA vr% mDr rF; ds vk/kkj ij vkosnd dks lw;Zoa'kh ¼vuqlwfpr tkfr½ dk LFkk;h tkfr izek.k i= tkjh ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vkosnd }kjk izLrqr vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vkt fnukad 10-05-2007 dks esjs gLrk{kj ,oa U;k;ky; dh lhy ewgj ls vkns'k ikfjr ,oa ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA** 5. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 3 has passed the order rejecting the application on the count that he has not filed any document that the caste of the petitioner was also included in the list of Scheduled Caste (Suryavanshi) in the State, of Chhattisgbarh or Madhya Pradesh and has failed to prove that he belongs to Suryavanshi (Schedule Caste). Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during partition in the year 1947, they have to run from Sindh after living their bag and baggages just to save their lives, therefore, it was not possible for them to bring the record and would pray for quashing of the impugned order dated 10.05.2007 (Annexure P/36) and for issuance of direction to respondent No. 3 to issue caste certificate in favour of the petitioner. 6. The State has filed its return denying the allegations made in the writ petition and contended that the relief sought by the petitioner to quash the order dated 10-5-2007 (Annexure P/35) and issue direction to respondents No. 3 and 4 to issue caste certificate to the petitioner deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner is intended to prove his social status and he has an alternate remedy to avail under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny Committee. It has been further stated in the return that the temporary caste certificate was valid only for six months and same has been lapsed after a period of six months, as such it cannot be renewed and the respondent No.3 has passed a detailed order which does not warrant any interference and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Respondent No.4 has filed return denying the allegations made in the writ petition. 8. Learned State counsel opposing the aforesaid submissions of the petitioner would submit that inclusion of the caste is not within the domain of this Court and inclusion of particular caste in the list of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes is within the domain of His Excellency President of India under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders 1950. He would further submit that the petitioner’s caste does not belong in the list of Scheduled Caste issued under Order 1950 for State of Madhya Pradesh or Chhttisgarh, therefore, no writ can be issued and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The issue emerged for determination of this court is whether the petitioner who is migrated from Sindh and in absence of any document produced by the petitioner that his caste was Scheduled Caste at Sindh provincial can be included as “Suraj - Bansi” in the list of Scheduled Caste in the State of Chhattisgarh. 11. 10. The issue emerged for determination of this court is whether the petitioner who is migrated from Sindh and in absence of any document produced by the petitioner that his caste was Scheduled Caste at Sindh provincial can be included as “Suraj - Bansi” in the list of Scheduled Caste in the State of Chhattisgarh. 11. To decide the point of determination by this court it is expedient to extract relevant provisions of Constitution of India which read as under : “Article 341, 342 and 366 (2) in the Constitution of India 1949 reads as under. 341. Scheduled Castes (1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause ( 1 ) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. Article 342 provides for specification of tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which are deemed to be for the purposes of the Constitution the Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory. Article 366 (24) “Schedule Castes” – It refers to those castes, races, tribes, or portions or groups within such castes, races, or tribes that are considered to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this Constitution under article 341 of the Constitution”. 12. Record of the case would demonstrate that respondent No.3/Sub Divisional Officer while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has also recorded its finding that the petitioner has not produced any document to demonstrate that the petitioner’s caste is treated as Scheduled Caste in the provincial Sindh. 12. Record of the case would demonstrate that respondent No.3/Sub Divisional Officer while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has also recorded its finding that the petitioner has not produced any document to demonstrate that the petitioner’s caste is treated as Scheduled Caste in the provincial Sindh. Learned Sub Divisional Officer has also recorded a finding that His Excellency President of India has issued in the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes wherein “Suraj-Bansi” has not been notified and petitioner’s caste Suraj Bansi cannot be treated synonymous of Surajyabanshi, as such no caste certificate can be issued in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the law is well settled by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Bhakiyalal vs. Harikishan Singh and others (Civil Appeal No 765 of 1964) decided on 5-2-1965, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1557 that issue of list of SC/ST is within domain of His Excellency President of India, no writ to include or delete the caste in the list of SC/ST can be issued. Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 has held as under:- “10. It is obvious that in specifying castes, races or tribes, the President has been expressly authorized to limit the notification to parts of or groups within the castes, races or tribes, and that must mean that after examining the educational and social backwardness of a caste, race or tribe, the President may well come to the conclusion that not the whole caste, race or tribe but parts of or groups within them should be specified. Similarly, the President can specify castes, races or tribes or parts thereof in relation not only to the entire State, but in relation to parts of the State where he is satisfied that the examination of the social and education are backwardness of the race, caste or tribe justifies such specification. In fact, it is well-known that before a notification is issued under Art. 341(1), an elaborate enquiry is made and it is as a result of this enquiry that social justice is sought to be done to the castes, races or tribes as may appear to be necessary, and in doing justice, it would obviously be expedient not only to specify parts or groups of castes, races or tribes, but to make the said specification by reference to different areas in the State. Educational and social backwardness in regard to these castes, races or tribes may not be uniform or of the same intensity in the whole of the State; it may vary in degree or in kind in different areas and that may justify the division of the State into convenient and suitable areas for the purpose of issuing the public notification in question. Therefore, Mr. Chatterjee is in error when he contends that the notification issued by the President by reference to the different areas is outside his authority under Art. 341 (1). 13. Again, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and another vs. Keshao Vishwanath Sonone and another and other connected matters, reported in (2021) 13 SCC 336 has held in para 60.1, 60.2, 64 and 65 which read as under:- “60.1 Entry 19 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as applicable in the State of Maharashtra was Halba/Halbi. The claim was raised by another caste Halba-Koshti that they are also entitled for issue of Scheduled Tribe certificate. The caste certificate of the respondent was rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee against which an appeal was filed, which was dismissed holding that respondent No.1 belonged to Koshti and did not belong to Halba/Halbi Scheduled Tribe. Writ petition was filed by respondent No.1, which was allowed by the High Court holding that it was permissible to enquire whether any sub-division of a tribe was a part and parcel of the tribe mentioned therein and that 'Halba-Koshti' is a subdivision of main tribe 'Halba'/'Halbi' as per Entry No. 19 in the Scheduled Tribe Order applicable to Maharashtra. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, following was held by this Court:- “5. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders inter alia holding that it was permissible to inquire whether any subdivision of a tribe was a part and parcel of the tribe mentioned therein and that “Halba-Koshti” is a subdivision of main tribe “Halba/Halbi” as per Entry 19 in the Scheduled Tribes Order applicable to Maharashtra. Hence the State of Maharashtra has come up in appeal by special leave, questioning the validity and correctness of the order of the High Court allowing the writ petition of Respondent 1.” 60.2. Hence the State of Maharashtra has come up in appeal by special leave, questioning the validity and correctness of the order of the High Court allowing the writ petition of Respondent 1.” 60.2. This Court after noticing the constitutional provisions held that 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 Scheduled Tribes Orders. This Court also held that no enquiry 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 paragraph 12, following has been laid down:- “12. ……………………………………….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 caste/Tribe (A) alone is mentioned in the Order but caste/Tribe (B) is also a part of caste/Tribe (A) and as such caste/Tribe (B) should be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe as the case may be. It is only Parliament that is competent to amend the Orders issued under Articles 341 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.” 64. It is further to be noticed that Constitution Bench in Milind’s case (supra) has noted the ratio of earlier two Constitution Bench judgments in B. Basavalingappa’s case and Bhaiya Lal’s case and in paragraph 28 has reaffirmed the ration of above two Constitution Bench judgments. In paragraph 28, following is laid down:- “28. Being in respectful agreement, we reaffirm the ratio of the two Constitution Bench judgments aforementioned and state in clear terms that no inquiry at all is permissible and no evidence can be let in, to find out and decide that if any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included within the scope and meaning of the entry concerned in the Presidential Order when it is not so expressly or specifically included. Hence, we answer Question 1 in the negative.” 65. In view of the ratio of judgments of this Court as noticed above, the conclusion is inescapable that the High Court could not have entertained the claim or looked into the evidences to find out and decide that tribe “Gowari” is part of Scheduled Tribe “Gond Gowari”, which is included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. It is further clear that there is no conflict in the ratio of Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in B. Basavalingappa’s case and State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and Ors.(supra). It is further clear that there is no conflict in the ratio of Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in B. Basavalingappa’s case and State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and Ors.(supra). The ratio of B. Basavalingappa’s case as noted in paragraph 6 of the judgment and extracted above is reiterated by subsequent two Constitution Bench judgments in Bhaiya Lal’s case and Milind’s case. There being no conflict in the ratio of the above Three Constitution Bench judgments, we do not find any substance in submission of Shri Rohatgi that for resolving the conflict, the matter need to be referred to a larger Constitution Bench”. 14. In view of the above factual matrix and also taking into note of the fact that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the caste which he belongs to is also Scheduled Caste, the learned Sub Divisional Officer has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application for grant of caste certificate in favour of the petitioner on 10.05.2007 (Annexure P/36). Even otherwise, the caste “Suraj Bansi” of the petitioner is not included in the Scheduled Caste order for State of Chhattisgarh and in view of provisions of Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, the caste which has been included in the order issued by His Excellency, the President of India can only be treated as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and any synopsis or parallel name cannot be recognized as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in view of specific bar contained as per law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 15. Considering the well settled principles of law, the material placed on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bhakiyalal vs. Harikishan Singrh and others and State of Maharashtra and another vs. Keshao Vishwanath Sonone (supra), I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 17. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.