CHANDKASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Arti. 226 of the Constitution, has been referred to a division Bench by Venkataramiah, J. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are residents of Vijanapura village. They have prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 (the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, and the chief Executive Officer, Taluk Development Board, Bangalore South) to restrain respondents 3 and 4 from acting as Chairman and member respectively of the Village Panchayat of Vijanapura. ( 3 ) THE facts which led up to this petition are briefly these: By a declaration made under S. 3 (1) of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Panchayat village called Vijanapura was constituted comprising of the revenue villages, vijanapura, B. Narayanapura and Mahadevapura. On 7-10-1974 the Divisional commissioner issued a notification (Ext-A) proposing to constitute a separate Panchayat Village consisting of the revenue village of Vijanapura and another Panchayai village called B. Narayanapura consisting of the revenue villages of B. Narayanapura and Mahadevapura. On 2-12-1974 he issued a notification (Ext. 'b') under clause (b) of sub-Sec. (2) of S. 3 of the Act, declaring that the area included in the Panchayat village, Vijanapura, shall cease to be a Panchayat village under the Act. On the same day he issued another notification (Ext. 'c') under S. 3 (1) of the Act, declaring two Panchayat villages as proposed in the notification, Ext. A. By another notification of the same date he appointed the Extension Officer ' (Panchayat) of the Development Block, Bangalore, to be the Administrator of the two newly constituted Panchayat villages. The aforesaid notifications were challenged in WP. No. 6596 of 1974. Jagannatha Shetty, J. , allowed the writ petition partly and quashed the notifications Ext. A, C and D; but allowed the notification, Ext. B, to stand undisturbed. The appeal preferred against the aforesaid decision, was dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing. Hence that decision has become final. ( 4 ) MR. K. S. Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that in view of the notification Ext. 'b' declaring that Vijanapura Panchayat village shall cease to be such, respondents 3 and 4 could not function as chairman and Member respectively thereof. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned Govt. Hence that decision has become final. ( 4 ) MR. K. S. Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that in view of the notification Ext. 'b' declaring that Vijanapura Panchayat village shall cease to be such, respondents 3 and 4 could not function as chairman and Member respectively thereof. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned Govt. Pleader contended that unless the notification under S. 3 (2) (b) excluding certain area from a Panchayat village, is followed by another notification under S. 3 (1) of the Act declaring a Panchayat village comprising of such area, the Panchayat village constituted earlier, shall not cease to exist as provided in Section 91 of the Act, and that hence the notification, Exhibit B, should be regarded as merely having declaratory effect without actually bringing about cessation of the Panchayat village, Vijanapura. ( 6 ) IT is true that the consequences set out in Clauses (a) to (e) of S. 91 of the Act will flow only where any local area comprised within the limits of the Panchayat village ceases to be as such and is declared as constituting two or more new Panchayat villages by virtue of a notification under S. 3 (1) of the Act. Whether or not such consequences come into operation, the inescapable effect of the declaration under S. 3 (2) (b) of the Act is that such area ceases to be a Panchayat village and cannot be regarded as continuing to be a Panchayat village. When under the notification, Ext. B, there is a declaration that the area included in the Panchayat village, Vijanapura, shall cease to be such, it is not possible to hold that that Panchayat village continues to exist merely because there is no valid notification constituting two or more new Panchayat villages in place of that Panchayat village. Hence, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Govt. Pleader. ( 7 ) MR. R. Venkateshwara Rao, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4, contended that in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Taluk Boards (Postponement of Elections) Act, 1974 (Karnataka act No,9 of 1974) and of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Taluk boards (Postponement of Elections) Act, 1975 (Karnataka Act No. 6 of 1975) it was not competent for the Divisional Commissioner to issue the notification, Ext. B, declaring that the Panchayat village, Vijanaoura, shall cease to be such. ( 8 ) IN support of his above contention Mr. Venkateshwara Rao relied on the decision of Malimath, J. , in WP. No. 3149 of 1974. There also the notification under which the revenue villages comprised in a Panchayat village were constituted into two separate Panchayat villages was impugned. His lordship held that after coming into force of Karnataka Act No. 9 of 1974, it was not permissible for the Divisional Commissioner to reconstitute the panchayat villages. ( 9 ) WITH great respect to his Lordship, we find it difficult to agree with the view taken by him. His Lordship does not appear to have noticed the difference between declaration of a Panchayat village under S. 3 of the Act and constituting a Panchayat under S. 5 of the Act. What Karnataka Acts nos. 9 of 1974 and 6 of 1975 provide is that arrangement to reconstitute a panchayat should be taken up just before the expiration of the term of the existing Panchayat or the term of the Administrator of that Panchayat when such term is extended under the provisions of these two Acts. Neither of these two Acts places any restriction on the power of the Govt. or the divisional Commissioner to declare a Panchayat village under S. 3 (1) of the Act or to alter the area comprised therein by inclusion or exclusion of any area by means of a notification under S. 3 (2) of the Act. This legal position is made clear by S. 5 of the Karnataka Act 9 of 1974 which states that except as otherwise provided by or under that Act the Karnataka village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, shall in all other respects, apply to Panchayats and Taluk Boards. S. 5 of Karnataka Act No. 6 of 1975 is to the same effect. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, Mr. S. 5 of Karnataka Act No. 6 of 1975 is to the same effect. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Venkateshwara Rao next submitted that if the contention of the petitioner that the Panchayat village, Vijanapura, has ceased to exist, is accepted, there would be vacuum until there is a valid notification issued under S. 3 (1) of the Act declaring two or more Panchayat villages in place of that Panchayat village, that there can be no administration under the Act in the area comprised in that erstwhile Panchayat village in the interregnum and that hence we should hold that the notification, ext. B, would, by itself be ineffective in bring about the cessation of the Panchayat village. Vijanapura,. Reliance was placed by Mr. Venkateswara rao on S. 4 of the Act which provides that in every village declared as such under the Act Ihere shall be a Panchayat. ( 11 ) UNLESS there is a Panchayat village validly declared and continuing as such under S. 3 of the Act, there cannot be a Panchayat therefor. Though the effect of holding that the notification, Ext. B, has brought about cessation of Panchayat village, Vijanapura, would, in the circumstances of the case, bring about vacuum in the administration of the area hitherto comprised in the Panchayat village, Vijanapura, the consequence necessarily tlowing from the issue of the notification Ext. B, cannot be avoided on that ground. It is for the authorities to fill such vacuum by taking appropriate action either by revoking the notification, Ext. B, or by taking steps to declare under Sec. 3 (1) of the Act two or more new Panchayat villages in place of erstwhile Panchayat village of Vijanapura. ( 12 ) IN the result, we allow this petition and restrain respondents 3 and 4 trom functioning as Chairman and member respectively of the Panchayat of erstwhile Vijanapura Panchayat village. ( 13 ) HOWEVER, we make it clear that this order does not come in the way of the Govt or the Divl Commr taking appropriate actior for bring the revenue villages of Vijanapura. B. Narayanapura, and Mahadevapura within the jurisdiction of Panchayat villages. ( 14 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .