JUDGMENT : - Yatindra Singh, J. This is a writ petition against the order dated 28-4-1999 declaring vacancy in the premises in dispute under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 2. RESPONDENT No. 2 is the landlord and owner of the premises in dispute. RESPONDENT No. 3 is his real daughter. She filed an application on 17-8-1998 for allotment of the premises on the ground that it has become vacant. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report on 11-9-1998. This was objected by the petitioner. In substance the objection of the petitioner was that: * The property was taken for residence of joint family and it is tenant but as Sri Purshottam Das Gupta was earning member receipt was issued in his name. * Sri Purshottam Das Gupta left the premises in 1972and took up tenanted premises elsewhere. Thereafter the petitioner alongwith his mother and other family members of the joint family continued to live in the premises though the rent receipt continued in the name of Purshottam Das Gupta. * The petitioner is a tenant of the premises living since before 5 of July, 1976 with consent of the landlord and is entitled to protection of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer Kanpurnagar (Respondent No. 1) after considering the evidence on record held that Sri Purshottam Das Gupta had left the premises in dispute and it has became vacant. Hence the present writ petition. 3. I HAVE heard Sri W. H. Khan Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. M. Dayal and Sri V. K. Agnihotri Counsels for the respondents. I HAVE already summed up the case of the petitioner in paragraph 2 of my judgment. None of the necessary finding has been t 'corded by Respondent No. 1. He has merely held that Sri Purshottam Das Gupta had left the premises and negated the case of the petitioner on the ground that he was minor without recording finding whether joint Hindu family was a tenant or not and when Sri Purshottam Das Gupta left the premises and if petitioner is protected under Section 14 of the Act or not. The case could not be decided without recording finding on these questions. In view of this the order dated 28-4-1999 is quashed and the case is sent back for re-decision. The case could not be decided without recording finding on these questions. In view of this the order dated 28-4-1999 is quashed and the case is sent back for re-decision. The parties may appear before Respondent No. 1 on 20-8-2001 and he may decide the case again in accordance with law after recording finding the following questions: (i) Whether the joint family was the tenant of the premises in dispute or only Sri Purshot tam Das Gupta was the tenant. (ii) When Sri Purshottam Das Gupta left REMISES in dispute ? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection of Section 14 of the Act? With these observation the writ petition is disposed off. W. P. disposed. 4. THE bottom line argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner before me is that the petitioner has moved representations before the respondents to cancel the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 relating to village Lai as they have cancelled in respect of village Kudha. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this court may issue a mandamus directing the respondents to decide his representation. Suffice it to say in this regard that writ of mandamus can be issued only in those cases where the authorities are under legal obligation to perform a statutory duty but on representation they failed to perform the same. Their failure to perform statutory duty gives a cause of action to an aggrieved person. THE mere filing of representation is not sufficient to issue a writ of mandamus unless it is further demonstrated that their action is demurrable. None of the conditions for issuing mandamus are satisfied in the present case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to demonstrate before me that the Consolidation Authorities- respondents arc required to pass speaking order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is well to remember that when ever and wherever State Government takes a policy decision on any subject affecting either individual or a large number of persons, it is practically not possible either to pass speaking order or to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to a large number of persons affected by such policy decision. It is well to remember that when ever and wherever State Government takes a policy decision on any subject affecting either individual or a large number of persons, it is practically not possible either to pass speaking order or to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to a large number of persons affected by such policy decision. After issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953, a large number of tenure holders are affected therefore, practically it is not possible to give opportunity of hearing to each tenure holder on his representation by speaking order but the State Government has no option except to notify the village under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 vice versa practically it is not possible to pass speaking order at the behest of individual tenure holder or all of the tenure holders affected when the State Government at any time decides to cancel the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1953 in respect of the whole or any part of the area specified in the notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act. 5. UPSHOT of the aforesaid discussion is that the aforesaid writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed in limine at the admission stage. Writ petition dismissed.