Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 197 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shabab Beg Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Murari Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed seeking the following amongst other reliefs:-
"(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature certiorari quashing the advertisement no.2419/G 610/2016-17 dated 12.11.2018 issued by the state government (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.
(II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 19.01.2019 through registered post before him."
In so far as the Annexure no. 1 is concerned, it is merely a consequential direction directing that the khataunis of the villages mentioned in the said order be uploaded online and locked.
Since the order aforesaid is only consequential order and the main order is not under challenge therein, there is no question of issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the consequential order. The writ petition in so far as the relief no. 1 is therefore entirely misconceived.
The second relief is for a mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to decide a representation dated 19.01.2019. By means of this representation, a prayer has been made for cancellation of the notification bringing village Majnupur under consolidation operations.
A Division Bench decision of this Court in Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Limited Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1976 RD page 281 has held that the notifications issued under Section 4 or 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are conditional legislation and that any direction by the writ court while exercising powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India would amount to directing the legislature to legislate in a particular manner, which power the High Court does not possess.
In my considered opinion, the mandamus prayed for would amount to such a direction by the writ court in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly and since in view of the decision of the Division Bench in the case noted above, such a direction is not liable to be issued.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 Mayank