Judgment B.D.Singh, J. 1. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the two petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of Kandra Gram Panchayat in the district of Dhanbad. Mr. S.C. Ghose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has drawn my attention to Sec.1 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the relevant" portion of which occurs in Sub-section (2) of Sec.1 and runs to this effect: "It extends to the whole of the State of Bihar except any area which has been, or may hereafter be, constituted a municipality or a notified area under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 ....." He referred to the statement made by the petitioners in paragraph 3 of their application wherein it is stated that the area of the said Gram Panchayat also included the Notified Area Committee mentioned in Notification No. 2169/LSG dated the 6th March, 1953, a true copy of which the petitioners have annexed to their application and marked as Annexure 1. Learned counsel further pointed out that petitioner No. 1 became a voter in the year 1969 when voters list was published. From the notification dated the 2nd February, 1955 published in the Bihar Gazette dated the 23rd February, 1955 it appears that the aforesaid Gram Panchayat came into existence under Sec.3 of the Act. According to the said notification the said Gram Panchayat consisted of the following six villages :-- Villages Thana No. 1. Head Kandra 167 2. Chakchitahi 170 3. Upar Kandra 166 4. Sindri (Part) 190 5. Rohrabandh 169 6. Tasra 168. Subsequently by another notification dated the 15th March. 1958 as published in the Bihar Gazette dated the 13th August, 1958, there were some modifications with regard to the villages and their area in the said Gram Panchayat, Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even by this notification the defect was not cured. Some portion of the Sindri Notified Area Committee still existed in the said Gram Panchayat. That has vitiated the constitution of the said Gram Panchayat. Petitioner No. 1 was enlisted as voter in the year, 1969. Some portion of the Sindri Notified Area Committee still existed in the said Gram Panchayat. That has vitiated the constitution of the said Gram Panchayat. Petitioner No. 1 was enlisted as voter in the year, 1969. Thereafter the election of the said Gram Panchayat on the basis of the notifica-tion of the year 1958, took place on the 28th May, 1969, The petitioners, soon after, learned counsel submitted, filed this application before this court on 18-6-1969, and it was admitted on 19-6-1969. On the basis of the above facts learned counsel submitted that the entire election was a nullity and has got to be set aside by this court. 2 Mr. K.P. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 7 and 8, on the other hand, contended that by notification of the year 1958 the defect, if any, was removed and the Gram Panchayat was duly constituted in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 1 and 3 of the Act. In this connection he also referred to the counter affidavit which has been filed on their behalf. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Block Development Officer, respondent No. 11. In my opinion, by reference to these counter affidavits and by reference to the notification mentioned above it would be difficult to decide whether the entire Notified Area Committee was excluded by the notification of the year 1958 or not. 3. Mr. Verma, however, challenged the application of the petitioners On the ground of delay. He referred to a series of Bench decisions of this Court. Out of them three are unreported, viz. Misc. Judicial Case No. 133 of 1961 (Pat) (Dineshwar Prasad Sharma V. State of Bihar) Misc. Judicial . Case 1340 of 1960 (Pat) (Promod Bihari Pd. Singh V/s. State of Bihar) and Misc. Judicial Case No. 228 of 1961 (Pat) (Suresh Pd Singh V/s. State of Bihar), all decided on 22-11-1961 by Ramaswami, C. J. and Untwalia, J. He also referred to a reported judgment in Brajlal Prasad V. State of Bihar (1966 BLJR 779) where Narasimham, C. J. and Anwar Ahmad, J. While dealing with the constitution of a Gram Panchayat by a notification made under Sec.3 of the Act, dismissed the application of the petitioners mainly on the ground of delay. In all the three cases aforesaid the starting point for consideration of the delay was taken from the date of the publication of the notification in the gazette. In the instant case the notification constituting the Kandra Gram Panchayat was published in the years 1955 and 1958 as mentioned above. In my opinion, this submission of Mr. Verma is well founded. On the ground of delay alone, this application has got to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Verma has further attacked the application of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have not made Kalipada Matho son of Babulal Mahto as a respondent to their application. Kalipada Mahto, he submitted, was one of the elected members of the Executive Committee of the said Gram Panchayat in the said election. Therefore, he was a necessary party to this application. In his absence the application, according to him, is not maintainable. On the other hand, Mr. Ghose appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has referred to respondent No. 6 of the application of the petitioners wherein Kail Mahto is mentioned as son of Ravi Mahto. In my opinion, because of the view which I have taken while considering the question of delay it is not necessary to give any finding on this point. 5. In the result, the application is dismissed and the election of the Kandra Gram Panchayat is upheld. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.