Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri N.L. Pandey for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs: - - "(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow as contained in Annexure No. 5 to this writ petition. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents to proceeding with the consolidation operation during the pendency of the instant writ petition." It is the admitted case of the parties that in 2004 a notification was published under section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act whereby the village Saraiya was brought under consolidation operations. Thereafter on 12.7.2014, an application is alleged to have been made to the District Magistrate praying that the consolidation operations be stopped. A copy of the aforesaid application, was sent also to the Consolidation Commissioner, the Secretary, Revenue Record Room, as also the Divisional Commissioner of Chitrakoot Dham. Subsequently, a writ petition being writ petition No. 4595 of 2013 is said to have been filed which was disposed of on 30.7.2013 directing the Consolidation Commissioner to pass an order on the application filed, after obtaining a report from the Consolidation authorities. In pursuance of the said order, a report is said to have been called from the Consolidation Authorities which was duly sent to the Consolidation Commissioner and ultimately the representation of the petitioner was rejected by his order dated 19.11.2013. Hence this writ petition for quashing of the order dated 19.11.2013.
(2.) IRRESPECTIVE of the manner in which the reliefs may have been framed, in essence the relief prayed for by means of this writ petition is primarily a direction to the concerned authorities to issue a notification under section 6(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act for cancelling the consolidation operations in the village in question. The power to issue notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act have been held to be conditional legislation. It has further been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Ltd., 1976 RD 35 that the Writ Court cannot issue any directions to the legislative authority to legislate in a particular way. Relying upon the aforesaid decision a similar controversy has already been decided by me in writ petition No. 535 of 2013 (Raja Ram Ojha v. Consolidation Commissioner and others) decided on 31.3.2014. In view of the aforesaid, the relief prayed for cannot be granted to the petitioner.
(3.) AT this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that challenge is merely to the order rejecting the representation and in setting aside the same this Court will not be issuing any direction to the concerned authority to legislate in a particular manner.;