- (1.) This writ petition assails the impugned notification dated 16.8.2016 under the provisions of the U.P. Area Development Act, 1976 relating to the restructuring of the authority of controlling irrigation projects and has also raised the issue of the status and functioning of the employees who are members of the petitioner-Association serving under the said authority.
(2.) The issues raised were recorded in the order dated 21.9.2016 to the following effect:- "Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Srivastava learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1. Issue notice to the respondent no. 2 returnable at an early date. The argument advanced is that the impugned notification dated 16.8.2016 is ultra vires to the provisions of section 3 of the U.P. Area Development Act, 1976 is founded on the fact that the provisions of the 1976 Act define a command area under section 2(e) and the Command Area Development Authority under section 3 thereof. The contention is that the existence of a command area is presupposed in the constitution of a Development Area under section 3 of the Act. So long as the command area continues to exist, the development authority of a particular command area is also separately stipulated under section 3 of the 1976 Act. The impugned notification merges two command area development authorities into one which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner can be done only by way of an amendment conferring such powers under the Act and, not by executive instructions inasmuch as the State Government is not authorised to do so under the 1976 Act. Learned counsel submits that the command area development authorities having been stipulated as a separate authority for a distinct command area, cannot be subjected to any merger as has been done in the present case more so when the very purpose of a command area has not ceased to exist. It is further submitted that the very object for which the aforesaid merger is sought to be attempted through the impugned notification is allegedly for streamlining administrative and financial matters. Learned counsel submits that this could be permissible only if the act is amended and not by the exercise of executive powers by the State Government so as to frustrate the very existence of the command area development authority which has been constituted under section 3 of thereof. Thus, what has been created under the 1976 Act cannot be abolished on an executive instruction. Learned Standing Counsel prays for three weeks time to file a counter affidavit. Any action taken with regard to merger of the two development authorities shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner may bring on record further documents relating to the foundation or basis for creating the developmental areas that may have emanated from the Central Government or the State Government Act. Learned counsel is further permitted to implead the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources and a copy of the writ petition shall be served on the learned A.S.G.I. within three days who may also file his response in this regard, if he so chooses. List this case on 18.10.2016." The respondents were thereafter called upon to file their affidavits.
(3.) An impleadment application has been filed on behalf of the Greater Sharda Sahayak Command Kshetra Vikas Pradhikari contending that the said applicant is a proper and necessary party keeping in view the nature of the challenge raised to the notification dated 16.8.2016.;