JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, 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 the notification dated 30.12.2014 issued under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. By this notification, the earlier notification issued under Section 4 (A)2 of the Act, bringing village Ramgarh alias Ummargarh, Tehsil Jaleshar, District Firozabad under consolidation operations, has been cancelled. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the village was brought under consolidation operations by means of a Notification under Section 4 (A) 2 of the Act issued on 29.07.1989. The consolidation operations proceeded and after the provisional consolidation scheme was prepared, objections were filed and decided. The appeals were also decided. However, about 50 revisions were stated to be pending consideration before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 4. The Collector /District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Firozabad issued a letter dated 04.12.2007 to the Consolidation Commissioner stating therein that consolidation operations, which started in the year 1989, had proceeded up to Section 23 stage but the delivery of possession could not be affected in the unit due to political rivalry among the tenure-holders. 5. Against this letter, a Writ Petition No. 42185 of 2010 is stated to have been filed. This writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 22.07.2010. It was directed therein that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may explore the possibility and feasibility of carrying out fresh consolidation operations after its cancellation from the stage of preparation of a fresh provisional consolidation Scheme Section 19 A of the Act and to pass appropriate order after hearing, the villagers and members of the consolidation committee. 6. It is alleged that in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, the Consolidation Commissioner rejected the recommendation made by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation for issuance of a notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act. 7. It is alleged that thereafter, applications were filed by several tenure-holders for delivery of possession. The petitioner also made a representation that the consolidation operations be concluded, as a period of 23 years had elapsed, since its commencement. 8. 7. It is alleged that thereafter, applications were filed by several tenure-holders for delivery of possession. The petitioner also made a representation that the consolidation operations be concluded, as a period of 23 years had elapsed, since its commencement. 8. Thereafter, the Additional Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Firozabad passed an order on 09.05.2014 cancelling the entire consolidation operations, with a direction that the proceedings be started de novo from the Section 7 stage. 9. Against this order, the petitioner is stated to have filed a Writ Petition No. 47074 of 2014, which is stated to be pending consideration. Subsequently, the impugned notification has been issued on 30.12.2014. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned notification under Section 6(1) issued after a gap of 26 years is illegal. It is alleged that the petitioner made a representation on 12.02.2015 before the Consolidation Commissioner which has not been disposed of. The next contention is that the title proceedings as also chak allotment proceedings, have concluded up to the appellate stage and that about 50 revisions are pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. As consequence of the issuance of the impugned notification things that have been settled, will be unsettled. The earlier recommendation for issuance of a notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, had already been rejected and yet the impugned notification has been issued, without assigning any reasons for the same. It is also submitted that the impugned notification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as a large number of tenure-holders are satisfied with the consolidation proceedings. The U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act is a social legislation and therefore, also the impugned notification should not have been issued and is liable to be quashed. 11. Learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned notification and has submitted that the same suffers as no illegality and the writ petition therefore, merits dismissal. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 13. This Court in Writ Petition (Consolidation) No. 535 of 2013, Rajaram Ojha Vs. Consolidation Commissioner, U. P. Lucknow & others, decided on 13.03.2014, has held that the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act is conditional legislation. The Writ Court is not competent to issue a direction to the legislature to legislate in a particular manner. 13. This Court in Writ Petition (Consolidation) No. 535 of 2013, Rajaram Ojha Vs. Consolidation Commissioner, U. P. Lucknow & others, decided on 13.03.2014, has held that the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act is conditional legislation. The Writ Court is not competent to issue a direction to the legislature to legislate in a particular manner. This decision in turn is based upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1976 RD 35. 14. A similar view has been taken by a recent Division Bench in Special Appeal Defective No. 421 of 2015, Dalip Singh & others Vs. Vikram Singh & others, decided on 7.7.2015. 15. The aforesaid judgments also hold that the power to issue a notification under Section 6(1) of the Act is within the competence of the authority issuing it and that no reasons are needed to be assigned for issuing such a notification. 16. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 17. Although, the writ petition also contains allegations that the impugned notification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as there is no factual foundation laid for this argument. 18. In paragraph 29 of the writ petition, it has been averred that cancellation of consolidation operations by the impugned notification, is malafide. This allegation has also been made without any factual foundation for the same having been laid in this writ petition. 19. In the absence of any factual foundation in support of the contentions that the impugned notification is malafide or that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, these contentions also, cannot be accepted. 20. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in the light of the judgment of this Court as also the Division Bench decisions referred to above. 21. It is, accordingly, dismissed.