CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE notification (marked Ext.-D) dated 26-1-1967 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, belgaum, purporting to be under S. 3 (2) (b) of the mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that the Panchayat, Annigeri, has ceased to be a village, has been assailed in this petition. ( 2 ) MR. S. G. Bhat, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the impugned notification was invalid on the following grounds. (i) The delegation of the powers of the Government under S. 3 of the act, to the Commissioner, was invalid; (ii) The impugned notification could not have been made without first declaring that Annigeri Panchayat Town had ceased to be a Panchayat town; (iii) The Divisional Commissioner could not declare that Annigeri had ceased to be a village without constituting simultaneously the area comprised therein into new village or villages under the Act; and (iv) The exercise of power by the Divisional Commissioner in issuing the impugned notification, was mala fide. Elucidating the first ground, Mr. Bhat argued that by the notification (marked Ext.-E) issued under S. 197 of the Act, the power of the Government under S. 3 of the Act was delegated to the Commissioner, without specifying to which of the four Divisional Commissioners the power was so delegated and that as the notification stands, it is competent for the divisional Commissioner of one Division to exercise such delegated power in respect of an area falling within another Division. ( 3 ) IN the present case, it is not disputed that such delegated power has been exercised by the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum, within whose territorial jurisdiction Annigeri village lies. Hence, the contention that the delegated power is capable of being exercised by the Divisional Commissioner of another Division, is only academic. The reference to the commissioner in the notification, Ext.-E, should, in our opinion, be construed as the Commissioner within whose territorial limits the area of the village in question, lies. ( 4 ) AMPLIFYING the second ground, Mr. Bhat argued that once a revenue village or a group ot revenue villages are declared as constituting a Panchayat Town under sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of the Act, the power under C1. (b) of sub-sec. ( 4 ) AMPLIFYING the second ground, Mr. Bhat argued that once a revenue village or a group ot revenue villages are declared as constituting a Panchayat Town under sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of the Act, the power under C1. (b) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 3 to declare that any area has ceased to be the village, cannot be exercised without first declaring that the Panchayat Town has ceased to be so. As pointed out by this Court in N. Setti Raju v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore, (1968) 2 Mys. L. J. 431 a Panchayat Town which comes into being by a declaration under S. 3 (3) of the Act is nevertheless a village as defined by the act. Hence the village referred to in Clause (b) of Sec. 3 (2) of the Act includes a Panchayat Town. There is no reason to impose on the exercise of the power under that Clause (to declare that any area has ceased to be the village) any condition not contained in that Clause. We see no force in the second ground urged by Mr. Bhat. Explaining the third ground, Mr. Bhat argued that S. 3 of the Act requires that every revenue village having a population of not less than 1,500 and not more than 10,000, must be declared as a village or part of a village as defined by the Act and that when the impugned notification declared that Annigeri shall cease to be a village, the authorities should have simultaneously constituted the area, comprised in that village into a new village or villages. ( 5 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been explained that after the issue of the impugned notification, the authorities were about to issue another notification constituting the revenue village of Annigeri into one village as defined by the Act and the revenue villages of majjigud and Saidapur into another village as defined by the Act and that on account of the stay order issued by this Court in this petition, the authoties could not proceed to constitute the said two villages. As held by this Court in Hassan Sab Hamiddin Sab Kallimani v. State of Mysore, (1966) 2 Mys. As held by this Court in Hassan Sab Hamiddin Sab Kallimani v. State of Mysore, (1966) 2 Mys. L. J. 340 once a village has been constituted under the Act, the power to declare that any part thereof shall form a new village can be exercised only after excluding such part by a proper notification under S. 3 (2) of the act. In the present case, the Divisional Commissioner had taken the first step for constituting two new villages under the Act in place of Annigeri village. Mr. Bhat has not been able to point out any provision requiring that the step of excluding an area forming part of the village as defined by the Act and the act of constituting that area into a new village or part of another village as defined by the Act, should take place simultaneously. Hence, there was no infirmity in the Divisional Commissioner first declaring that Annigeri shall cease to be a village, as a preliminary step for reconstituting the three revenue villages comprised therein into two separate villages as defined by the Act. ( 6 ) LASTLY, it was contended that the Divisional Commissioner acted mala fide and that the sole object in issuing the impugned notification was to prevent the office bearers of Annigeri Panchayat belonging to a particular political party from continuing to hold their offices on the eve of the general Elections. ( 7 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the object of reconstituting Annigeri village into two villages was on administrative grounds which have been explained in the counter-affidavit. We see no reason to disbelieve that explanation. Except making an allegation of mala fides the petitioner has not placed any materials to substantiate that allegation. We have no hesitation in rejecting the plea of mala fides. Ail the contentions of the petitioner fail and we dismiss this petition. But, in the circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .