Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Sri B.B.Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing a notification issued by the Consolidation Commissioner, under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act dated 28.9.2015.

3. It has been submitted that earlier consolidation operations were initiated in the unit in 1959. The Unit was brought under consolidation operations, a second time by a notification under Section 4-A(2) on 5.7.2013, however due to political interference, the consolidation operations were not permitted to continue, on account of which, Writ Petition No. 36083 of 2014 was filed by Sukhdev Singh and three others.

4. In this writ petition, a mandamus was sought directing the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur to start consolidation operations in pursuance of the gazette notification published on 10.8.2014. A counter affidavit was filed therein stating that a notification under Section 4(2) had been published in the gazette and a mistaken stand had been taken earlier, that this notification had not been issued and therefore consolidation operations could not proceed.

5. In the aforesaid scenario, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, since admittedly there was no reason why the consolidation operations could not proceed.

6. Subsequently another writ petition being writ petition No. 39888 of 2015 was filed by one Prahalad praying that consolidation operations be closed. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to the Consolidation Commissioner within two weeks which was required to be decided within four months thereafter.

7. Yet another writ petition being writ petition No. 58153 of 2015 was filed by one Hari Ram and others seeking directions for disposal of a representation dated 25.9.2015, seeking a notification under Section 6(1) of the Act.

8. The representation dated 25.9.2015 was a representation opposing the earlier representation for issuance of a notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, regarding which Writ Petition No. 39888 of 2015 was filed by Prahlad.

9. The writ Court vide order dated 9.10.2015 directed that the representation be also considered while considering the other representations for issuance of a notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. It was also directed that the Consolidation Commissioner would consider and record reasons for its acceptance and rejection of the representations.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the impugned notification dated 28.9.2015 has been issued cancelling the notification under Section 4-A(2) dated 5.7.2013. As a consequence thereof, the consolidation operations in the unit, stand cancelled.

11. Referring to Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is submitted that the word used in Sub-section 1 of Section 4 is “may”. It is further submitted that this power which vests in the State Government, has wrongly been delegated to the Consolidation Commissioner and that it is a case of excessive delegation. It is State Government alone which can exercise this power conferred by Section 4 and 6 of the Act.

12. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the decision in the case of Siddharth Sarogi v. Calcutta Port Trust, 2015(4) SCC, especially paragraphs 41 to 51 thereof.

13. The second submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned notification is ultra vires having been issued beyond the scope of Section 6 of the Act.

14. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the writ petition. The aforesaid paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 are reproduced below—

“16. That now without making any fact finding enquiry and further without considering mandatory requirements of Rule 17 of U.P.C.H. Rules, respondent consolidation co