- (1.) This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Mau to decide the case pending before him in between Ramanand Vs. Sudhir and Others u/s 60(2)(b) of Gaon Sabha Manual against order dated 18.2.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Madhuban, District Mau; 2. issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. 3. award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) Heard Sri Manish Chandra Tiwari, along with Sri Anil Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Sri R.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Pawan Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Pramod Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.
(3.) It was argued before this Court that the entire proceeding of the allotment of ponds situated over plot nos. 244 and 246 measuring about 407 air situated in Village Gurumha, Tehsil Madhuban, District Mau is farce, as it was made contrary to the provisions contained in Government Order dated 17.10.1995 as well as Government Order dated 9.7.2013. Considering the same, this Court on 29.4.2015 passed the following order: "Heard Sri Manish Chandra Tiwari along with Sri Anil Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Sri Vinod Kumar Patel, along with Sri Pramod Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and R.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. In substance, the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by approval to execute the lease in favour of respondent no. 5 pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.1.2014 published in Dainik Hindustan. The advertisement appears to have been issued by the Assistant Registrar (Kanoongo), Tehsil Madhuban, District Mau. The petitioner has brought on record the copy of the advertisement, which does not contain the names of the villages, pond number, its area and other requirements for participating in the settlement of fishery lease. It is contended that the aforesaid advertisement is contrary to the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 as well as Government Order dated 9.7.2013 circulated vide letter no. 1750/1-2-2013-96(writ)/13 by the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. and the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pramod Kahar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2012 94 AllLR 538) and Smt. Kaushaliya Devi Vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Os. (WRIT - CNo. - 39590 of 2014 decided on 8.1.2015). In his submissions, the entire proceeding pursuant thereto is void abinitio. Learned standing counsel is directed to seek instructions in this matter and produce the records justifying the issuance of the advertisement and apprising the Court as to whether the advertisement has been issued in consonance with the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 as well as Government Order dated 9.7.2013 and the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pramod Kahar and Smt. Kaushaliya Devi . It shall also be apprised to this Court as to whether the lease has been executed in favour of respondent no. 5 or not. As prayed, put up this case as fresh on 12.5.2015. On that date, the Sub Divisional Officer, Madhuban, District Mau shall remain present before this Court along with complete records in order to assist the learned standing counsel. ";