Ran Vijai Singh,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Niraj Tiwari, 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 Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent no.7.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: 1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certirorari quashing the impugned ex parte order dated 29.6.2016 passed by the Deputy District Magistrate, Martinganj, District Azamgarh i.e. respondent no.2 on the report of concerned Gram Panchayat Adhikari for registration of names of the contesting respondent nos. 7 to 10 in the family register of the petitioner's family (Annexure No.5 to this writ petition. 2. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 i.e. Deputy District Magistrate, Martinganj, District Azamgarh to recall the ex parte report and order dated 28.6.2016 and 29.6.2016 by deciding the petitioner's recall application within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 i.e. Deputy District Magistrate, Martinganj, District Azamgarh to decide the stay application filed by the petitioner with recall application against the ex parte report and order dated 28.6.2016 and 29.6.2016 within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court and till decide the recall application, the effect and operation as well as its implementation of ex parte order dated 29.6.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 on the ex parte report dated 28.6.2016 submitted by the respondent no.4 may be kept in abeyance, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and substantial injury which cannot compensate in the terms of money. 4. issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Award cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. Initially the argument was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sub Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 29.6.2016 as under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules 1970 (in short the Rules, 1970) since the Sub Divisional Officer happens to be the appellate authority, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
(3.) From the perusal of the record it transpires that the petitioner's grievance is for recording the names of respondent nos. 7 to 10 in the family register.;