JAGANNATH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri N.L. Pandey for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) IRRESPECTIVE of the manner in which the reliefs may have been framed, in essence the relief prayed for by means of this writ petition is primarily a direction to the concerned authorities to issue a notification under section 6(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act for cancelling the consolidation operations in the village in question. The power to issue notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act have been held to be conditional legislation. It has further been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Ltd., 1976 RD 35 that the Writ Court cannot issue any directions to the legislative authority to legislate in a particular way. Relying upon the aforesaid decision a similar controversy has already been decided by me in writ petition No. 535 of 2013 (Raja Ram Ojha v. Consolidation Commissioner and others) decided on 31.3.2014.

(3.) AT this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that challenge is merely to the order rejecting the representation and in setting aside the same this Court will not be issuing any direction to the concerned authority to legislate in a particular manner.