N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a strange petition depicting how inefficient our public servants and administration have become making all of us hang our heads in shame. The petitioner claims to be an Upsarpanch of one Babra gram panchayat. He is challenging Governments two orders one at annexure G issued by the Development Commissioner Gujarat State respondent No. 1 herein on 12-4-1979 followed by his subsequent notification published in the Govt. Gazette dated 7-6-1979 appointing the Talati-cum-Mantri as the administrator of the two different grams brought into existence by annexure G. ( 2 ) THE facts require to be closely noted. Till April 1979 there was in existence a Babra Gram Panchayat of area consisting of the areas of two revenue villages viz. Babra having population of 9734 and Amarpur having population of 1584. As a matter of fact these two areas of Babra and Amarpur are contiguous and can be said as one unit but for the fact of 25 to 40 Amreli road running through them and making them two separate entities. However the fact remains that in the revenue record there are two villages Babra and Amarpur. In the year 1977 a move was brought to disintegrate that composite area of Babra Gram Panchayat but the record bears out that the Babra Gram Panchayat opposed the said proposal by its resolution dated 29-9-1977 and then the District Panchayat by its resolution at Annexure D dated 23-8-1917 dis-approved the move. The administrative officer of the District Panchayat the D. D. O. sent his communication Annex. H dated 7-10-1977 informing the Development Commissioner that as the distance between these two sites of Babra and Amarpur was not the standard measure of 3 Kms. the move of segregating the two was not proper. The Development Commissioner the exercises the power of the Government under sections 9 298 and 308 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act took a decision on 16-3-1978 at annexure D-1 to the effect that the two local areas did not require to be bifurcated. the move of segregating the two was not proper. The Development Commissioner the exercises the power of the Government under sections 9 298 and 308 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act took a decision on 16-3-1978 at annexure D-1 to the effect that the two local areas did not require to be bifurcated. The matter ordinarily should have rested there but the local M. L. A. who appears to have been behind the move called on the Development Commissioner somewhere in December 1978 and so the Development Commissioner again revived that interred topic and revived the problem by writing a communication at annexure E to the District Development Officer requiring him to elaborate whether the areas of Babra and Amarpur were two separate revenue villages or not. What happened thereafter is not known but the affidavit of the Development Commissioner shows that he had conducted some on the spot inquiries and was satisfied about the necessity of the proposed bifurcation. All this culminated in to the impugned Resolution at annexure G dated 12-4-1979. The said annexure G makes it amply clear that the area of Babra Gram Panchayat was sought to be divided into two independent areas by exclusion of Amarpur from the composite unit and the proposal was to establish two Gram Panchayats. I emphasise this because the contention of the petitioner which I shall presently note would ultimately be repelled on the ground of this particular emphasis. After issuance of the said notification at annex G the office of the Development Commissioner went into hibernation. In the meantime the Collector had notified election for that composite Babra Gram Panchayat. The election programme is to be found at Annexure F. The Elections were notified to be intended to take place on 14-6-1979 and the result was to be declared on the following date. The office of the Development Commissioner on the one hand and the office of the Deputy Collector on the other manned by salaried employees concerned more with pay packets at the close of the month did not work in co-ordination. On this side the Deputy Collector notified the election programme for the composite Babra Gram Panchayat and on the other side the Development Commissioner on 7-6-1979 issued a notification. On this side the Deputy Collector notified the election programme for the composite Babra Gram Panchayat and on the other side the Development Commissioner on 7-6-1979 issued a notification. It is the Gazette part I-A central Section dated 7-7-1979 where the notification by the Development Commissioner as the delegate of the Government mentions that the new grams formed pursuant to the notification at annexure G shall be known as Babra Gram Panchayat and Amarpur Gram Panchayat and the administrator was appointed who was none other than the Talati-cum- Mantri of the Babra Gram Panchayat. ( 3 ) THE petitioner came to be elected as the upsarpanch of the Panchayat as its meeting held on 7-7-1979 and he took over the charge also as such. Then came the bolt from the blue viz. the administrator seeking to dislodge him and the sarpanch other members from their seats. The Sarpanch who was threatened to be unseated rushed to the Civil Court whereas the upsarpanch knocked the doors of this Court with the hope to undo the development Commissioners decision at annexure C. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute and could not be in dispute that the Development Commissioner has power to exclude some area out of the existing area of a gram panchayat. What would be the consequence of such exclusion is provided for in sections 298 and 310 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. Under section 298 in so far as it is relevant for our purpose in the case of exclusion of any area from the limits of any gram panchayat the members of the gram panchayat representing the area excluded from the gram panchayat stand removed. The say of the petitioner in this petition is that the Development Commissioners action amounts to exclusion of the area of Amarpur from the composite area of earlier Babra Gram Panchayat and consequently the only order that could be passed by the Government would be removal of those who were elected from the area of Amarpur gram panchayat. The argument at the first glance appears to be quite appealable but sec. 310 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act is also to be read alongwith sec. 298. Sec. 310 inter alia provides that by virtue of a notification issued under sub-sec. (2) of sec. The argument at the first glance appears to be quite appealable but sec. 310 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act is also to be read alongwith sec. 298. Sec. 310 inter alia provides that by virtue of a notification issued under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 9 if any gram ceases to be a gram or any nagar and the local area comprised in the gram is declared to be a gram or split up into two or more grams with effect from the date on which the local area is so declared or split up the following consequences shall ensue. One of the consequences is that the panchayat constituted in respect of such local area shall stand dissolved and all the members of the panchayat shall vacate office. Which of the two provisions stand attracted in the present case ? According to Mr. Raval for this unfortunate upsarpanch sec. 298 is the only provision that stands attracted. The statement made by the learned advocate Ramesh A. Mehta is otherwise. Sec. 298 and sec. 310 operate in two different situations though they deal with a situation emanating from a notification under sec. 9 (2) of the Act. Both these sections as a matter of fact refer to the Governments decision under sec. 9 (2) of the Act. Sec. 298 however would be attracted if there is a case of exclusion followed by inclusion of that excluded area in some existing gram Panchayat. Section 510 becomes applicable if the local area of a gram Panchayat is split up in to two or more respective panchayats. The case on hand is clearly a case of splitting up of the local area of the Babra Gram Panchayat into two independent local areas to be under the charge of the two independent gram panchayats namely the Babra Gram Panchayat and the Amarpur Gram Panchayat. So sec. 310 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act is the only section that stands attracted and not sec. 298 of the said Act. ( 5 ) IN my opinion the above conclusion is inescapable and that would clinch the questions against the petitioner. On this ground the petition shall be liable to be dismissed. I therefore reject this petition by discharging the rule. ( 6 ) I however. cannot refrain from expressing my deep concern at the unhappy state of affairs prevailing at the administrative level. On this ground the petition shall be liable to be dismissed. I therefore reject this petition by discharging the rule. ( 6 ) I however. cannot refrain from expressing my deep concern at the unhappy state of affairs prevailing at the administrative level. The order at Annexure G and the Government Gazette of 7-6-1979 could no have escaped the notice of the officers like the Deputy Collector who was incharge of the Election. He should have stopped the process of election and the petitioner and others could have been spared of the considerable costs and inconvenience caused to them. The whole gamut was allowed to be gone through only because the different Government Officer acted in total oblivion of their duties to the citizen and thus they occasioned not only the costs and inconvenience but also humiliation to the people like the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case therefore the respondent No. 1-the Development Commissioner who seems not to have pointedly drawn the attention of the concerned panchayats the District panchayat and the Deputy Collector well in time deserves to be saddled with the costs of the petitioner. Therefore respondent No. 1-the Development Commissioner shall pay the costs of the petitioner the costs being quantified at Rs. 200. 00. Petition dismissed .