cases. In Nityanand Sharma Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 3 SCC 576 ) the Apex Court considered the question whether lohars could be considered as synonym like loharas or lohras. The Court held that lohars is other backward class and is not scheduled tribe and the Court cannot give any declaration that lohars are equivalent to loharas or lohras or that they are entitled to the same status. Reference can also be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Bhaiyalal Vs. Harikishan Singh (AIR 1965 SC 1557), B. Basavalingappa Vs. D. Munichinnappa (AIR 1965 SC 1269), Srish Kumar Choudhaury Vs. State of Tripura (1990 Supp.SCC 220) and Vinay Prakash Vs. State of Bihar ( 1997) 3 SCC 406). The Apex Court in Bhalivalal's case (supra) held that the object of Cl.(1) of Art.341 is to avoid all disputes as to whether a caste is scheduled caste or not for the purpose of the Constitution. In S.Nagarajan Vs. District Collector, Salem (1997) 2 SCC 571) the Apex Court held that it is the Presidential Notification issued under Art.341 which is to decide who is deemed to be a member of a scheduled caste for the purpose of the Constitution. If the Presidential notification omit any specific class or tribe or a part thereof, then it would be for the Parliament to make necessary amendments. Therefore to determine whether a particular caste is scheduled caste coming within the meaning of Art.341, one has to look at the terms of the Presidential order. Law is well settled that once the Parliament by law includes in or excludes from any race, caste, tribe, parts of or groups within any caste, race or tribe, the President thereafter shall have no power to vary it by any subsequent notification. The Court has also no power to include in or exclude from or substitute or declare
