Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition had been summoned by me today on a mention being made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioners. I have perused the judgment dated 16.8.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition 48646 of 2010 which is quoted below: Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The only relief pressed is that a direction be issued to the Consolidation Officer, Sagari, Azamgarh to decide the pending cases of the Petitioners under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, which are said to be pending since 2006, expeditiously within a fixed time frame. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the Consolidation Officer, Sagari, Azamgarh Respondent 3 to make an endeavour to decide the pending cases 245/338 and 246/339 expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It appears that the proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 were initiated and the matter is still pending. In between the Petitioners moved an application for transfer of the said case, before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the application moved by the Petitioners summoned the records. Thereafter he recalled his earlier order. These are administrative orders which have been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and there cannot be a mandamus to stay the consolidation process. If a writ petition for deciding the application under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act has already been filed in which a mandamus has already been issued by this Court, then there cannot be a contrary mandamus.
(3.) THE writ petition is absolutely misconceived and is accordingly rejected.;