Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3674 of 2018 Petitioner :- Lal Mani Tiwari Respondent :- Commissioner, Consolidation Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Nandan Pandey,Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Commissioner, Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow, the first respondent, to ensure compliance of various Government orders mentioned in Prayer No. (i) of the writ petition. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner read as under:
"i. To issue a writ, or direction in the nature of Mandamus to Commissioner, Consolidation U.P. Lucknow to ensure the compliance of Govt. Notifications dated 26.05.1981, 12.05.2003 and 17.06.2011 in respect of Consolidation Operation of village Parwa Rajdhar, Tappa- Chaurasi, Tehsil & District Mirzapur of illegalities committed by the Consolidator as well as the A.C.O. in large scale.
ii. To issue a writ, or direction in the nature of Mandamus to Commissioner, Consolidation U.P. Lucknow to decide the representation dated 02.04.2018."
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is a complete Code in itself. The writ of mandamus can be issued only when a person has a legal right and the authority concerned has failed to perform his statutory duty in spite of having been approached. In the present case, the petitioner, who claims that he has commercial value in Gata Nos. 323, 333 and 292 which are existing at the roadside, however, those gatas have not been allotted to the petitioner.
Be that as it may, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declines to entertain such a trivial and petty matter. The petitioner may seek recourse to the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. From the record it appears that the petitioner has made a representation to the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. on 13th April, 2017 and without waiting for a reasonable time has rushed to this Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470, has observed that it is high time when the High Court should curb the tendency of filing frivolous petitions as all the High Courts are overburdened with huge pendency of the cases.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met by directing the first respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 SKT/-