ORDER Shiv Dayal, C.J.- 1. In Tahsil Ashoknagar (district Guna), there is a Gram Sabha area called "Anwari Mafi". The Gram Sabha is for a group of villages, namely, Padariya, Anwari, Barkhedi, Bansapur, Parasari, Tikaram Gora, Singwasa, and Pachchadi kheda. Under section 10 of the M.P. Panchayats Act, 1962, (hereinafter called the Act), a Gram Panehayat was constituted for the said group of villages and was known as “Anwari Mati Gram Panchayat” consisting of 16 elected members; two women co-opted members;a nd one representative of Adivasis. 2. By a notification dated June 26, 1970, (published in the M. P. Rajpatra dated July 10, 1970), the State Government expressed an intention to exclude from the area of the Gram Panchyat Anwari Mafi a certain portion of one of the above villages comprising the said Gram Panchyat (annexure C). It was issued in exercise of powers under section 360(1) of the Act. However, the Gram Panchyat, Anwari Mafi, by a resolution dated March 15, 1970, (annexure D) objected to the said intention of the State Government. The Sarpanch of the Panchayat filed a revision. 3. Later on, the State Government by another notification dated September 24, 1970, expressed their intention to give over the entire area of the said Gram Panchyat to the admistration of the Municipality (Annexure F). And further, the State Government, in exercise of their power under section 12(2) of the Act, cancelled the election of the said Gram Panchayat. 4. Aggrieved by the subsequent notification, the petitioners, who are from village Padariya, which is included in the area of the said Gram Panchayat, filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that under section 12(2) of the Act, by virtue of its proviso, an election can be cancelled, but before that is done, the State Government must express an intention. Learned counsel urges that it is obligatory to express an intention by a notification under section 360 of the Act. His argument is that when a manner is prescribed for expressing the intention contemplated by section 12(2) of the Act, that intention must be expressed in the prescribed manner, or not at all. Since, in the present case, there was no expression of the intention in the mode prescribed in section 360 of the Act, the proceedings are invalid. 6. In our opinion, this contention is misconceived. Since, in the present case, there was no expression of the intention in the mode prescribed in section 360 of the Act, the proceedings are invalid. 6. In our opinion, this contention is misconceived. Section 360 of the Act reads thus :- "360. Notification of intention to alter limits of or to amalgamate or to split up Gram Sabhas :- (1) The State Government may, by notification, signify its intention- (a) to alter the limits of a Gram Sabha area by including within it any local area in the vicinity thereof or by excluding therefrom any local area comprised therein ; or (b) to amalgamate two or more Gram Sabhas and constitute one, Gram Sabha in their place: or (c) to split up a Gram Sabha and to constitute two or more Gram Sabhas in its place. (2) Every such notification shall define the limits of the local area which is intended to be included in or excluded from a Gram Sabha area, or of the areas of the Gram Sabhas intended to be amalgamated into one. or of the area of each of the Gram Sabha intended to be constituted after splitting up an existing Gram Sabha, as the case may be and shall also specify the period which shall not be less than thirty days within which objection. if any, shall be received by the State Government." It is clear beyond doubt that this section applies only to those cases which fall within the purview of sub-section (1). To the present case, so far as Annexure F is concerned, none of these three applies. It was not as if the limits of the Gram Sabha area were to be altered by including within it any local area; or by excluding therefrom any local area; nor was this a case where two or more Gram Sabhas were to be amalgamated; nor was this a case where this particular Gram Sahha was to be split up so as to constitute two or more Gram Sabhas in its place. Here, the entire area comprising the said Gram Sabha was being included in the area of the Municipality To such a case, section 360(1)(a) of the Act is in applicable. Here, the entire area comprising the said Gram Sabha was being included in the area of the Municipality To such a case, section 360(1)(a) of the Act is in applicable. That being so, the petitioner's contention that in this case also, (i.e. Annexure F), it was obligatory for the State Government to issue a notification in the manner prescribed by section 360 of the Act, cannot be accepted. 7. Sections 360 and 361 of the Act being out of the way, all that is now to be seen is whether the requirements of section 12 of the Act are satisfied. There are three requisites :- (1) An intention which falls within the purview of the proviso to section 12(2) of the Act must be expressed by a notification; (2) the intention must be in public interest; and (3) reasons must be recorded in writing. In the present case, (1) declaration of the intention of the state Government was by notification; (2) it was said in the notification that it was being made in public interest; and (3) reasons recorded, namely, for better administration. 8. Shri Mittal vehemently argues that 'intention' is different from 'decision' .The concept of intention is that it is a preliminary step. It necessarily postulates a further action and where the law requires an intention to be expressed by a notification in the gazette, it necessarily implies an opportunity to be given to persons interested to file objections and it further contemplates a decision on those objections. As a broad proposition, perhaps, Shri Mittal may be right, but, having regard to the context in which section 12(2) of the Act has been enacted, along with its proviso, and having regard to the scheme of the Act, we are not persuaded to accept this contention. We may at the most say that the word 'intention' is not an appropriate expression in view of the meaning and the sense in which it is generally used in legal parlance. However, before we can accept the contention, it must be shown whether any other manner is prescribed for the expression of such intention, or that the intention is further to be followed by a decision after, or without, an enquiry into the objections which may be filed. Section 360 of the Act is enacted for different situations. However, before we can accept the contention, it must be shown whether any other manner is prescribed for the expression of such intention, or that the intention is further to be followed by a decision after, or without, an enquiry into the objections which may be filed. Section 360 of the Act is enacted for different situations. That section is not apposite here, nor can its provisions be engrafted on section 12 by analogy. 9. It was an argument for the petitioner that on the earlier notification (Annexure C), the Gram Sabha filed objections, but nothing further was done, although the provisions of section 361 of the Act are mandatory. In our opinion the State Government was entitled to change its mind and, for giving better administration to the people, the State Government could take action under section 12(2), with the aid of its proviso. The relevant portion of the notification (Annexure F) reads thus :- ^^pwafd uhps nh xbZ vuqlwph ds dkWye ¼2½ esa fofufn”V dh xbZ xzke lHkk {ks=ks ds Hkhrj LFkkuh; dkjckj ds iz’kklu gsrq vPNh O;oLFkk djus ds fy, ,sls {ks=ks dks uxjikfydk iz’kklu ds v/khu ykuk b”Vdj gSA^^ We have no doubt that the publication of an intention under section 360(1)(a) of the Act is by no means a bar to an action being taken under section 12. Having regard to its nature and scope, the earlier notification (Annexure C), ipso facto, became ineffective and infructuous when the notification (Annexure F) was issued. 10. It was alleged in the petition that the action of the State Government in issuing the notification (Annexure F) was mala fide inasmuch as out of 19 members constituting the Gram Panchyat, 18 belonged to the Congress 'O' and only 1 to Congress ‘R’, so that the State Government, under one pretext or another, wanted to cancel the election. In their return, the State Government have unequivocally denied this insinuation. They have reiterated that the action has been taken in public interest and for better administration of that area. This is not a case where we can accept the charge of mala fide, just because most of the Gram Sabha members belonged to a political patty which is opposed to the ruling party. Furthermore, we find that it is not as if there will be any other election after the cancellation of the present election. This is not a case where we can accept the charge of mala fide, just because most of the Gram Sabha members belonged to a political patty which is opposed to the ruling party. Furthermore, we find that it is not as if there will be any other election after the cancellation of the present election. The impugned notification not only cancels the election of the Gram Sabha but also takes away the entire area of the Gram Sabha for the purpose of being included in the area of the Municipality. In other words, the Gram Sabha will be extinct for that area. 11. The learned Government Advocate pointed out that this petition was filed a five years ago and because, on the petitioners' application a Division Bench of this Court, by its interim order, stayed the operation of the notification (Annexure F), matters have been standing still. The Gram Sabha has practically lived almost its whole life of five years because of the stay order. 12. The petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall pay to the respondent Rs. 150/-as costs out of the security amount, and the balance, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners.