JUDGMENT Khem Karan, J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. K. Sinha, the learned counsel for the State on admission of this writ petition.
2. The petitioner has come with a case that he has been given a contract of collecting Toll tax of Mohana Bridge, situated at 383 Kms. on Bilrayan Panwadi Marg in district Jalaun and just at a distance of 2-3 Kms. an illegal bridge is being constructed by Sri Narayan Das and the construction of bridge by Sri Narayan Das' is likely to adversely affect his contract. It is said that he gave representation to the Collector and Commissioner for taking suitable action in the matter, but they kept the matter with them and consequently, the petitioner had no remedy but to make reference under Rule 6 of the U. P. Tolls Regulation Levy and Collection Rules, 1980. He submits that this reference is lying with the Government and is not being decided.
3. Sri Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this writ petition may be disposed of with a suitable direction to the Government to dispose of the reference under Rule 6 of the said Rules of 1980.
4. Sri Sinha, the learned counsel for the State has raised a preliminary objection as to the territorial limits of this Bench to entertain and decide this writ petition. His contention is that the Collector and the Commissioner of the district and the division respectively are fully competent to dispose of the representation and pass suitable orders and the reference under Rule 6 of the said Rules of 1980 has been made simply with a view to create territorial Jurisdiction in case the reference is rejected. He says that the reference is not competent.
5. With due respect to Sri Sinha, the Court is not in a position to agree with him. Whether the reference is competent or incompetent, cannot be pronounced here in this petition at this stage. In view of the statement of Sri Kalra that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Government to dispose of that reference, this Court cannot enter into the question whether the reference lies or not and that is the matter which has to be seen by the authority before whom the reference is pending. What jurisdiction will be created by rejection of reference, is a different matter and the present writ petition cannot be thrown away on that ground. At present, this Bench has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition as the reference under Rule 6 is not being disposed of. So the preliminary objection as regards the territorial limits of this Bench is not accepted for the reasons stated above.
6. Now since Sri Kalra has made an innocuous prayer that the writ petition may be finally disposed of with a suitable direction to the State Government to dispose of the reference under Rule 6, the Court is of the view that there is no point for seeking counter-affidavit and the writ petition may be disposed of accordingly.
7. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite party No. 1 to dispose of the reference under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1980 within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.