Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—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 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.”

3. 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.

4. From the perusal of the record it transpires that the petitioner’s grievance isfor recording the names of respondent Nos. 7 to 10 in the family register.

5. Recording the names of respondent Nos. 7 to 10 in the family register amounts to inclusion of their names in the family register, which is governed under Rules 6 and 6-A of the Rules, 1970 which read as under:

“Rule 6. Inclusion of names in the register. — Any person whose name is not included in the family register may apply to the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) for the inclusion of this name therein.

(2) The Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) shall if, satisfied, after such enquiry as he, thinks fit that the applicant is entitled to be registered in the register direct that the name of the applicant be included therein and the Secretary of the Gram Sabha shall include the name accordingly.”

Rule 6-A. Any person aggrieved by an order made under Rule 5 or Rule 6 may, within 30 days from the date of such order prefer and appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer whose decision shall be final.”

6. From the perusal of the impugned order it transpires that inclusion, of the names of respondent Nos. 7 to 10, has been made pursuant to the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, who happens to be appellate authority under Rule 6-A of the Rules, 1970. It is well-settled that if the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner, then that thing has to be done in that very manner. Reference may be had to the judgments of the Apex in Taylor v. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch D 426; Nazir