ORDER : (S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to process the recommendations of the 3 rd respondent dated 28.01.2021, 04.05.2021 and 23.12.2021 within a time frame. 2. The petitioner is a company, namely, The Green Mount India Foundation. It is stated that they exclusively cater to issues pertaining to education, healthcare and community development in and around the Nilgiris District. The petitioner states that the unique nature of Badaga community has been the subject matter of extensive study for long time. The petitioner is of an opinion that Badaga community in Nilgiris District is to be declared as Scheduled Tribe community. Accordingly, efforts were taken. The State Government submitted a proposal to the Central Government for initiating all appropriate actions. The Central Government initially in its order dated 08.06.2022, stated that the office of the Registrar General & Census Commission, India is unable to support the current proposal of the State Government. Subsequently, in letter dated 13.06.2023, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs addressed a letter to the Additional Chief Secretary, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu with a request to furnish further justification/comments of the Government of Tamil Nadu in respect of the proposal originally submitted. 3. Pertinently, the first order passed by the Government of India dated 08.06.2022 was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Office of the Registrar General, India. It was addressed to the Director, Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Thus the Ministry of Home Affairs, Office of the Registrar General of India has taken a decision stating that the office of the Registrar General & Census Commission, India is unable to support the proposal of the State Government. Thus the said letter is to be construed as decision taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 4. However, the learned counsel for petitioner relied on the subsequent letter of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs dated 13.06.2023 addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department. Therefore, the said letter dated 13.06.2023 has been issued in order to collect more materials from the State Government, if available. However, the said letter would not provide any cause for the petitioner for claiming Scheduled Tribe community status. 5. Therefore, the said letter dated 13.06.2023 has been issued in order to collect more materials from the State Government, if available. However, the said letter would not provide any cause for the petitioner for claiming Scheduled Tribe community status. 5. The Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department filed a status report, which states that the Registrar General of India in its letter dated 08.06.2022, does not support the proposal that Badaga community possess tribal traits akin to their neighbouring Scheduled Tribes, namely, Toda, Kota, Kurumba etc., and also the published ethnographic information on the said community also conveys that Badaga is a prosperous and significant landowning peasant community of Niligiris, who do not seem to have traces of primitiveness or similar specific traits. Therefore, the State Government has accepted the decision of Ministry of Home Affairs, Office of the Registrar General of India, which was communicated to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs vide its proceedings dated 08.06.2022. Thus the subsequent letter addressed by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to the Additional Chief Secretary, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department would not provide a fresh cause. When the State Government has decided the issue on the ground that Badaga community is a prosperous and significant landowning peasant community of Nilgiris who do not seem to have traces of primitiveness or similar specific traits, this Court cannot compel the State Government to submit a revised proposal or otherwise and any such decision is to be taken only by the State Government based on the facts and datas available on record. More so, the petitioner is a company and they have no locus to file the present writ petition. For all these reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.