JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by 2.5 persons of village Totaher Mustakil in Distt. Gorakhpur. They have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents viz. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, Director of Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary, Revenue Department Lucknow, not to proceed with the consolidation operation in village Totaher Mustakil and Totaha Ehatmali, in pursuance of a notification dated 22-2-1986 under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter called Act). The grievances of the petitioners are that in these two villages it is difficult to carry out the consolidation operation in pursuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act as in village Totaha Mustakil there are 1000 houses and the population is more than 10000 and total area of the village is 301 acres and total plots are 1009 according to the report of the Consolidation Officer, Gorakhpur and only 199 acres of land is worth consolidation operation. In respect of the other village also, similar complaints have been made. The application by the residents of both the villages have been filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure I). On that application a report from the Consolidation Officer was obtained, who has submitted a report (Annexure 3) to the effect that the consolidation operation may be carried out considering the area of the villages. 2. In the next part of the report it has been stated that 80% residents of village want that the consolidation operation may be carried out. Only 20% of the villagers are opposing consolidation operation (vide page 54 of the paper Book). This report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was submitted to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who in his turn submitted it to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who has rejected the demand of the petitioners by the impugned order dated 5-9-1989. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in these two villages on account of the complaints made it was not possible to carry out the consolidation operation. Even certified copy of the,map of the revenue records are not available. Much reliance was placed on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. State of U.P. (1976 R.D. 35). Even certified copy of the,map of the revenue records are not available. Much reliance was placed on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. State of U.P. (1976 R.D. 35). It was further urged that the respondents be directed to issue notification under Section 5 of the Act canceling the notification under Section 4. The respondent have refused to issue notification under Section 6. It was further urged that it was duty of respondents to have issued notification under Section 6 of the Act and they failed to carry out their statutory duty imposed upon them, hence the case for the issuance of writ of mandamus has been made out. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has urged that it was an administrative power of the State Government and also policy matter either to issue notification under Section 6 for the cancellation of the notification under Section 4 or not. Under the impugned order reasons have been furnished why no notification under Section 6 was imperative. The respondents have correctly carried out their statutory duty imposed upon them hence no grounds for issuance of writ of mandamus are made out. It was suggested by the learned counsel for the parties that the petition may be decided on merits. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties i am of the view that as the issuance of the notification under Section 6 for the cancellation of the notification under Section 4 (four) is an administrative-cum-policy matter to be decided by the State Government, either to issue notification under Section 4 for the consolidation operation to commence in the area or to issue notification under Section 6. As a matter of fact the scope of writ of mandamus can not be extended to such an extent as to enforce administrative or legislative powers. In fact, either to issue notification under Section 6 for cancellation of notification is a sort of legislative power of the State. The jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 need not be stretched to such an extent so as to compel the State Government to legislate on a particular subject, particularly when it does not give a corresponding right in favour of petitioner. 6. The jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 need not be stretched to such an extent so as to compel the State Government to legislate on a particular subject, particularly when it does not give a corresponding right in favour of petitioner. 6. In Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. State of U.P. (supra) somewhat similar controversy arose in respect of the ambit of the power of the High Court in quashing the notification under Section 6 or 4. In that case the controversy appears to be that the petition was filed with a prayer that the notification issued under Section 6 may he quashed. In that connection relevant observation of the Division Bench may be set out below : - "If the High Court allows the writ petition and quashes the notification issued under Section 6, the result would be in substance continue the consolidation proceedings in the area in question in spite of the fact that it has not considered it fit to do so in exercise of powers vested in it by the legislative powers, it cannot be conceivably contended that the High Court can issue a mandamus to the legislature to legislate on any subject or to apply any law to any area. The High Court cannot pass an order making it obligatory on the State Government to enforce the scheme of consolidation in an area where in its opinion such scheme should not be enforced. It would amount to compel the State Government to exercise its power of conditional legislation". The aforesaid observation of the Division Bench are quite meaningful. It indicates that in case High Court allows the writ petition and quashes the notification under Section 6, the result will be in the nature of direction to State Government to continue the consolidation proceeding or not. In support of the fact it has been considered fit to do so in exercise of the powers vested in it by legislature. This power either under Section 4 or under Section 6 has been held to be a conditional legislative power and in such matters High Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus. In case High Court directs - in such matters by issuing a writ of mandamus that would amount to direction to the State legislature to legislate in a particular manner for which Tam afraid this court has no jurisdiction. In case High Court directs - in such matters by issuing a writ of mandamus that would amount to direction to the State legislature to legislate in a particular manner for which Tam afraid this court has no jurisdiction. It is a policy matter and also administrative matter for the consolidation of the State Government. The State Government may take one view or the other. 7. The scope of writ of mandamus is by now well settled that unless there is some denial of the statutory duty cast upon the State and authority and the state has refused to carry out the statutory duty, in that event writ of mandamus cannot be issued. In the instant case by refusing to issue notification under Section 6 (six) of the Act it cannot be said that the State Government has refused to carry out any statutory duty imposed upon it. In such matters no writ of mandamus can be issued. However, it is open to the petitioners to approach the State Government with their representation if so advised. 8. In view of the aforesaid observations petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.