JUDGMENT ABHYANKAR J.-This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution raises an interesting question of the interpretation of section ~ or the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. 2. Petitioner No. I is a Village Panchayat of the local area of villages Dhama and Wadhona Buzrutc while petitioners I (a) to 5 are some of the members of this Village Panchayat. They have challenged the validity of a Notification No. C-27102-1686-VPT-64, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, dated 2nd December 1965, in Part I-A of the Nagpur Supplement, page 619. The relevant notificafition is as follows:- "No. C-27102-1686-VPT-V-64-In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (I) of section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (Bombay of 1959), read with Government Notification, Local Self-Government and Public Health Department, No. VPS-2459-P. dated the 25th May 1959, and after consultation with the Standing Committee of the Yeotmal Zilla Parishad and the Village Panchayats of (1) Wagads (2) Dharna and (3) 8akhi Bk. in Pandharkaoda Panchayat Bamiti in Kelapur Taluka of the Yeotmal district I, M. N. Desai, Commissioner. Nagpur Division, Nagpur, with effect of from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, hereby exclude from the villages shown in column (3) of the following table, the local area comprising the villages shown till column (4) of the table for establishment of separate Village Panchayats:. TABLE Serial Name of Jurisdiction Villages to Serial Name of Jurisdiction. No. Group over villages. be excluded No. Village Village from the Panchayat 1. Panchayat. Group to be established of Village Panchayat. reconstituted. (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) * * * * * * * 2. Dharna .. 1 Dharna .. 3 Dharna …..I. Dharna 2. Wadhona Wadhona Bk. Bk. * * * * The notification purports to have been i88ued under section 4 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The grievance of, the petitioners is that they have between consulted before the issue of the notification a8 required by the, provisions of section 4 and, therefore, the notification is bad. 3. Under the Bombay Village Panchayata Act, power is given to the State Government to constitute a panchayat for every village. The grievance of, the petitioners is that they have between consulted before the issue of the notification a8 required by the, provisions of section 4 and, therefore, the notification is bad. 3. Under the Bombay Village Panchayata Act, power is given to the State Government to constitute a panchayat for every village. Under action 2 (24) of the Act, a "village" is defined as uany Joeal area declared to be a village under section 4 or deemed to be a village." Under section 4 (I) of the Act, the State Government is empowered to declare any local area comprising a revenue village or a group of revenue villages or hamlets forming part of a revenue village, or other such administrative unit or part thereof, to be a Village Thus, under the statutory definition of a village, area comprising more and two revenue villages can form a unit as a village panchayat under, he Act. Such a village panchayat was constituted for the two villages of Dharna and Wadhona Buzruk, combired under one unit of administration as a village panchayat. 4. In 1961, to be precise, oil 18-7-1961, the then members of the Village Panchayat of Dharna Wadhona Bk. passed a resolution, which has been reproduced by the petitioners as Annexure A, resolving that in view of the demand of the villagers of Wadhona Bk., Wadhona Bk. village may be made separate and accordingly a request was made by the Village Panchayat to the State Government. In other words, by this resolution, the petitioner No.1, the Village Panchayat recommended to the State Government that villages Dharna and Wadhona Bk. should have separate village panchayats. 5. Fresh elections seem to have taken place when a new body came into notice in 1962. On 29-7-1963, the Village Panchayat passed a unanimous resolution expressing an opinion exactly contrary to that expressed by their resolution of 1961. By this resolution, the Panchayat resolved that it was the desire of villagers of both the villages, Le. Dharna and Wadhona Bk., that they should continue to form one village panchayat and it was resolved that this decision , should be brought to the notice of the Government. A similar resolution was a]so passed subsequently on 7-12-1964 of which Annexure C is a copy. 6. Dharna and Wadhona Bk., that they should continue to form one village panchayat and it was resolved that this decision , should be brought to the notice of the Government. A similar resolution was a]so passed subsequently on 7-12-1964 of which Annexure C is a copy. 6. The petitioners grievance is that in spite of these later resolutions, the first respondent, i. e. the Commissioner of Nagpur Division, had issued the notification reproduced above but without consulting either petitioner No. 1 the Village Panchayat or any of its members, who are affected by the notification. 7. The petition is contested principally by the second respondent, i. e. the Zilla Parishad Yeotmal, representating its Standing Committee. They have filed a return in this case, and the learned Additional Government Pleader supported the action of the first respondent on their behalf. A return is also filed on behalf of the fifth respondent, who i1l a member of the Village Panchayat. Respondent No. 4 has supported the cause of the petitioners while the fifth respondent, who is also a member, has opposed the petition. It may be noted at this stage that the first respondent has not filed any return nor any appearance is entered on behalf of the first respondent. 8. In supporting the action of the first respondent, the second and the fifth respondents content that there was no occasion, nor any necessity, for a. fresh consultation with any of the petitioners inasmuch as the resolution of 1961 had already accepted the desirability of splitting up of the two villages into two separate units as panchayats and there being no contrary indication before than authorities, the action taken by the first respondent is not open to challenge on any ground. The Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad, the second respondent, was consulted by the first respondent, and they have accepted the desirability of splitting up of the two villages into two separate panchayat inasmuch as the villagers of Wadhona Buzruk desired a change in their status. 9. The Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad, the second respondent, was consulted by the first respondent, and they have accepted the desirability of splitting up of the two villages into two separate panchayat inasmuch as the villagers of Wadhona Buzruk desired a change in their status. 9. It is further urged on behalf of the contesting respondents that at no 8tage the petitioner No.1 or any of the other members, who are now making a grievance, brought to the notice of the first respondent that they did not desire the splitting up of the two villages into two separate panchayats and if the first respondent acted on the basis of the resolution of 1961, that would be adequate compliance with the provisions of section 4 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. In this connection, it is pointed out that the first respondent must be presumed to be aware of the resolution of 1961, because, under rule 4Q of the Rules framed for regulating the meetings of the village panchayats under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, a copy of the proceeding had to be submitted to the Chairman of the District Village Panchayat MandaI within seven days of the meeting. A presumption would, therefore, arise that a copy of, the resolution of 1961 must have been submitted to the district Village Panchayat MandaI as required by the rules. Under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act a District Village Panchayat Mandal was to be constituted under section 134 of the Act. There being a presumption of official acts being done properly and regularly, if such a resolution had been forwarded to the District Village Panchayat Mandai, that resolution would, in its turn, form part of the record of the Zilla Parishad. There is a reference to this resolution in the proceedings before the Standing Committee when the Standing Committee was consulted by the first respondent with regard to the proposal for reconstitution of the Panchayats. In this manner the first respondent being made aware of the opinion of the Panchayat and reflected in its resolution of 1961, there was neither any necessity nor for a further consultation and, in absence of any complaint to the contrary, the exercise of power by the first respondent cannot be challenged. It is further submitted that the scheme of the Village Panchayats Act is that every village should have its own panchayat. It is further submitted that the scheme of the Village Panchayats Act is that every village should have its own panchayat. In pursuance of this objective, steps are being taken to give a separate panchayat for each village as a unit of village administration and, in the course of implementation of this policy, if action. is taken by the first respondent in this case, it cannot be seriously objected to., It is claimed that the decision is an administrative decision and is not open to challenge nor justifiable in these proceedings under Article 226. or 227 of the Constitution. Support is claimed for this latter contention from a decision of the Supreme Court in Radeskyam Kkare v. State of M. P. (1). 10. After hearing the contesting respondents, we have come to the conslusion that the objections are not well founded. It will be convenient to deal with the last objection to the jurisdiction of this Court. The power that is vested in the State Government and delegated to the first respondent in this case under section 4 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act is not an exercise of an administrative power. The first respondent is Acting under a statute and is bound by the terms, of the statute. We are unable to appreciate how in crossing the power under provision of the statute, any question of policy, other than that laid down by the Legislature, is germane or claim protection from scrutiny. If the exercise of the statutory power is shown to be in contravention of the provisions of the statute, persons affected by such exercise of the power are certainly entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The matter which went before the Supreme Court was under section 53-A of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, and, as far as we can see, what seems to have been decided is that, when power is vested in an authority to take a policy decision in respect of exercise of an administrative power, it is not vulnerable nor is it justifiable ordinarily by a writ of certiorari. We do not, therefore, think that the decision on which reliance is placed is of any assistance to the respondents. II. The consequences of action under section 4 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act are provided for in section 160 of that Act. That section is as follows:- "160. We do not, therefore, think that the decision on which reliance is placed is of any assistance to the respondents. II. The consequences of action under section 4 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act are provided for in section 160 of that Act. That section is as follows:- "160. (1) Where any local area comprised within the limits of a village cease to be a village and is declared as constituting two or more new villages by virtue of a notification under section 4, with effect from the date on which such notification is issued (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the said date"), the following consequences shall ensue, that is to say,- (a) the panchayat constituted in respect of such local area shall ce8!le to exist and as the members of the panchayat shall vacate office; (b) until panchayats are constituted for the new villages, the State Government shall appoint an administrator or administrators to exercise the poW8lll and perform the functions of the panchayat for each of the new villages; (c) the unexpended balance of the village fund and all the property (including arrears of rates, taxes and fees) belonging to such panchayat shall vest in the new panchayat in such proportion and in such manner as the State Government may direct. (d) the officers and servants of such panchayat shall be allocated by the State Government to the new panchayats in such manner as the State Government may direct; (e) subject to clanses (a) to (d) the provisions of section 159 shall mutatis mutatis apply to the administrator or administrators of the new panchayats and their members. (2) Within one year of the said date the Panchayats for the new villages shall be constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (3) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of section 11I9 or this section, the State Government may, by order, as the occasion may require do anything which appears to it to be necessary to remove the difficulty." 12. It will be seen that one of the effects of a decision to reconstitute or making a declaration under section 4 is that a panchayat previously functioning 8S constituted prior to the Action taken under section 4, ceases to exist and a further effect of such notification is that all the members of that panchayat vacate office automatically. It will be seen that one of the effects of a decision to reconstitute or making a declaration under section 4 is that a panchayat previously functioning 8S constituted prior to the Action taken under section 4, ceases to exist and a further effect of such notification is that all the members of that panchayat vacate office automatically. Thus, a notification under section 4 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act has a two-fold effect; Firstly, the ex-panchayat in respect of which a notification is issued ceases to exist as a legal entity. The second and more serious effect is that the members constituting that panchayat automatically vacate office. The notification thus affects the status of the members as representing their wards in the local body. It is precisely for this reason, in our opinion, that the Legislature has made advisably a provision in sub-section (2) of section 4 for consulting the panchayat concerned before action is taken under section 4 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 13. There is a specific averment in para 5 of the petition that the Panchayat was not consulted nor was it granted a hearing to place its point of view before the notification was issued. This allegation raises a question of fact, viz. whether, in fact, the petitioner No.1 the Panchayat was or was not consulted by the first respondent. The only party which could have made any statement in reply to this averment would be, with propriety, the first respondent. It is the first respondent who is required by law to consult the Village Panchayat, and we are constrained to observe that, in absence of any return being filed or any appearance being entered on behalf of the first respondent, it is not possible to hold that this allegation has been refuted as required by law. It is true that the second respondent has denied this allegation. But the second respondent is not an authority which would have any direct knowledge about the fact of consultation by the first respondent with the first petitioner, the Panchayat. The alternative argument that the resolution passed by the find petitioner in 1961 and a knowledge of that resolution would be adequate 0000plianoe with the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 4 is also not tenable. The alternative argument that the resolution passed by the find petitioner in 1961 and a knowledge of that resolution would be adequate 0000plianoe with the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 4 is also not tenable. Section (2) speaks of consultation with "the panchayat concerned." The panchayat concerned will not only mean the panchayat with respect to which the action is proposed to be taken but the panchayat as constituted at the time when consultation has to be made. It is true that the Village Panchayat constituted under the Act is a legal personality or entity and is having a perpetual seal, and Ruceession. But it is well-known that the complexion of the panchayat will change from time to time and especially when new bodies come in. There is nothing like unalternability of decisions of the deliberative body like panchayat constituted as a corporation. It will be, therefore, difficult to uphold the contention that, because of the resolution of 1961, the Panchayat was bound by the resolution for all time to come. We put it to the learned counsel for the second respondent whether a resolution of a prior date could be operative and held good against the Panchayat for all time to come. The resolution may be good in the light and context of circumstances then prevailing. But, if there is nothing in law preventing the Panchayat from coming to a contrary or different conclusion, then we fail to see why the first respondent was not liable to consult the Panchayat when action was Actually proposed to be taken, i. e. when the notification in dispute was about to be issued or Action was initiated for issuing of such a notification. 14. We are also not satisfied that there is any reliable evidence on record to presume that the resoluion of 1961 passed" by the first petitioner \vas within the ognizance of the first respondent. The process of reasoning by which such an argument is pressed before us is as follows: The resolution as passed in 1961 must, in the ordinary circumstances and in compliance with the rules of meetings then prevailing, have been forwarded to the District Village Panchayat MandaI. The District Village Panchayat Mandals, which were functioning under section 134 of the Panchayat Act, were abrogated as a result of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Act which came into force on 1st May 1962. The District Village Panchayat Mandals, which were functioning under section 134 of the Panchayat Act, were abrogated as a result of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Act which came into force on 1st May 1962. Zilla Parishad is the succeeding district unit of 100801 administration and should be taken as a successor of the district Village Panohayat Mandai under section 134 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. If the records of the district Village Panchayat Mandai could properly be sent and might have been sent along with the resolution of the Panchayat which must have been sent through the Panchayat Mandai to the Zilla Parishad, the Zilla Parishad would have access to such resolution. Support is sought for this submission on the basis of reference to this resolution passed by petitioner No.1, in the proceedings of the Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad (respondent No.2), which assented to the change proposed by the first respondent. The second respondent has not filed a copy of those proceedings before us. But even assuming that there is Ii .FE-ferenc, to the resolution of 1961 passed by the petitioner No. 1 Panchayat agreeing to split up the two villages, we fail to see how a mere reference to that resolution is a substitute of the requirement of consultation with the Panchayat by the first respondent when he proposed to take action under section 4 (2) of the Act. 15. The Panchayat concerned which ought to be consulted is the Panchayat as constituted on the date the dooisionis required to be taken by the first respondent. Under section 9 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, the Panchayat is made a corporatehody; but under section 10 what shall comprise or consist of the panchayat is provided, and under section 10 (1) (a) a panchayat shall consist of such number of members as the ejector may determine. So all members of the panchayat are a vital and integral part of the panchayat itself. When any action is proposed to be taken under section 4 (2), it has its impact on the status of the members constituting the panchayat. If for nothing else, at least in obedience to the well accepted principles of natural justice, the members, who constitute the panchayat and are affected by the action, have a right to be consulted. When any action is proposed to be taken under section 4 (2), it has its impact on the status of the members constituting the panchayat. If for nothing else, at least in obedience to the well accepted principles of natural justice, the members, who constitute the panchayat and are affected by the action, have a right to be consulted. Consulting the panchayat does not mean consulting office bearers or any selected representative, but the panchayat as a whole comprising of totality of its membership. An opportunity must, therefore, be given to all the members comprised in the panchayat to express their opinion with respect to the proposal initiated by the first respondent under section 4 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. If that has not been done and we must observe in this case that, that is not complied with in this call, then an action taken under section 4 (2) is liable to be struck down as an exercise of power without due compliance with the requirement of the section itself. 16. Even in absence of a provision like section 4 (2) regarding consultation, one should have thought that in exercise of a power under the Act, the authority exercising the power would normally consult the persons affected by the exercise of such power. This principle is a salutary principle in dealing with representative institutions and that has been recognized by the Legislature in the provision it made in section 4 (2). The requirement of this important provision, therefore, cannot be either ignored or whittled down by following a circuitous procedure. In the instant case, it is not even averred by the authority concerned, that such a procedure was followed. The mere statement in the notification that the power is exercised after consultation with the Panchayat concerned, will be no answer to the charge when there is a specific averment that no such consultation had taken. From the facts disclosed on record also, it does not appear that the first respondent independently, at any time, gave an opportunity to the petitioner No. 1 and its members constituting the Panchayat to say what they wanted with respect to the proposal for splitting up the two villages. In view of the serious lacuna in the exercise of the power, it must be held that the notification concerning these Villages is not validly issued and is ineffective. In view of the serious lacuna in the exercise of the power, it must be held that the notification concerning these Villages is not validly issued and is ineffective. We accordingly quash that notification, so far as it affects Village Panchayat of Local area of Dharna and Wadhona Bk. 17. The petition is allowed. In the circumstances, the petitioner will be entitled to costs from the second respondent. The consequences of the quashing of the notification will follow in due course . Petition allowed.