JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondent-State.
2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.1.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 in Case No. 3 of 2001, Ravindra Mohan v. Basudev son of Panna Lal, Bulandshahr, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby the respondent No. 1 refused to declare the vacancy in the accommodation in question and holding that the occupant is entitled for the regularisation as contemplated under Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the word 'consent' used under Section 14 of the Act presumed that there should be a consent in writing and in the impugned order the respondent No. 1 has presumed that there is a consent. The contention of Sri Mithal cannot be accepted, where the Legislature has used the word 'consent'. It can be consent express or consent implied. In the impugned order, the authority has proceeded on the implied' consent because there was no case set up that there was any consent in writing and upon a bare perusal of the aforesaid proceeding under Section 14 of the Act, it proceeds on the assumption that there is no allotment order and that is why regularisatton under Section 14 of the Act is required, therefore, the contention of Sri Mithal cannot be accepted. This writ petition, therefore, is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed.
3. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.