ARUN TANDON, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Kirshna Nand Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 5, Smt. Mewati was admittedly married to Sri Bhagwati and accordingly her name was registered in the family register of Sri Bhagwati. Sri Bhagwati expired in the year 1965. According to the petitioner, Smt. Mewati thereafter married another person known as Chauthi, as a result whereof her name was deleted from the family register of Bhagwati by the Assistant Panchayat Development Officer, Mithaura, District Maharajganj. Subsequently an order dated 22nd April, 1981 was passed by the Assistant Panchayat Development Officer, Mithaura, District Maharajganj whereby the name of Smt. Mewati was again recorded as the wife of Sri Bhagwati in the family register. Petitioner claiming himself to be the real brother of Sri Bhagwati moved an application referable to Rule 5 of the U.P. Panchayati Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970, for necessary corrections in the family register of Sri Bhagwati on the ground that Smt. Mewati has married one Sri Chauthi after the death of Sri Bhagwati, and therefore, her name was liable to be deleted from the family register. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Niehilaul, District Maharajganj passed an order dated 23rd January, 1998 deleting the name of Smt. Mewati from the family register of Sri Bhagwati in alleged exercise of powers under Section 6-A of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 (a copy of the said order has been enclosed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). Smt. Mewati coming to know of the aforesaid order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 23rd January, 1998, moved an application for recall of the said order. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate by means of the order dated 15th June, 2001 allowed the application of Smt. Mewati recalled his earlier order dated 23rd January, 1998 on the ground that same was an ex parte order and directed that the matter be put up again for evidence of Sri Ram Prasad on 29th June, 2001. In pursuance of the said order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, necessary Amaldaramad was effected by the Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat, Mithaura, Maharajganj. The petitioner made an application on 1st July, 2001 that the aforesaid change in the family register may be suspended as no Parwana for Amaldaramad has been issued. The petitioner thereafter claims to have filed a revision under Section 6-A of the Panchayat Raj Act before the Commissioner, which has been numbered as 205/M. The petitioner contends that said revision has not yet been decided and therefore, this Court may issue direction upon the Commissioner to decide the revision of the petitioner at the earliest possible.
(3.) IN the opinion of the Court the relief prayed for by the petitioner is totally misconceived inasmuch as the revision as filed by the petitioner is legally not maintainable and no directions can be issued to any Court or authority to decide the application, which are legally not maintainable.;