- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the notice dt. 8-4-97 is sued under U. P. Minor Minerals (Conces sion) Rules, 1963, for grant of mining lease under Chapter II of the Rules.
(2.) SHRI Sumesh Khare, learned Coun sel for the petitioner has urged that the State Government had issued a notification on April 4, 1997, creating with effect from the date of publication of the Notification in the Gazette, a new district by the name of Kaushambi and therefore the impunged notification issued by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, on April 8, 1997 with regard to an area which fell in the newly created district of Kaushambi is illegal. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is averred that it was for the first time on April 9, 1997 that Manoj Singh took over charge as District Magistrate, Kaushambi and prior to that no one had been posted to act as District Magistrate of the newly created District of Kaushambi. It therefore, shows that though the district of Kaushambi had been created on April 4, 1997 but its District Magistrate was ap pointed only on April 9, 1997. Prior to April 9, 1997 no one was functioning as District Magistrate of Kaushambi. The area com prised in District Kaushambi was formerly a part of district Allahabad and the District Magistrate of Allahabad had full jurisdic tion to issue a notice under Rule 72 of the Rules. When a new district is created by the State Government necessary infrastructure and the Government offices etc. cannot be built over night and this is bound to take time. The activities of the State cannot remain in abeyance during the period which will be taken in creation of such infrastruc ture. If such a view is taken, public at large will suffer immensely. Therefore on the facts and circumstances of the present case, if the State Government had decided to issue a notice for grant of mining lease through the District Magistrate, Allahabad, who prior to April 4, 1997 had full jurisdic tion over the territory, no exception can be taken to such a course of action. Thal apart the petitioner has not shown what prejudice has been caused to him by issuance of impugned notice by the District Magistrate of Allahabad. A writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary remedy and the Court is not bound to issue such a writ even if there is any illegality or want of jurisdiction. For a petitioner who establishes his right to seek the direction it must be shown that some legal right is being infringed by the Govern ment or by any other public body charged with statutory duties. It is only a person who is establishing a specific legal right that can maintain petition for a writ of creator or mandamus or ask for an order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution as the existence of a right is the foundation of the exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court. No right of the petitioner has been infringed in any manner by the issuance of the notice by the District Magistrate of Allahabad. In these circumstance, we are not inclined to issue any writ as prayed at the instance of present petitioner. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed summarily at the admission stage. Petition dismissed. .;