JUDGMENT 1. - These writ petitions, details whereof have been enumerated in the Schedule appended to this order, have been filed by alleged Representatives of various villages, Ex-Sarpanchas, Ex. Ward Panchas etc. challenging the notification No. F. 15(1) Vidbi/Gra Vi P/ dated 10th September, 1992, published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 11th Sept. 1992, whereby the State Government in exercise of its powers under Sections 3, 4, 70, 86 and 87 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (in short 'the Act') has established, constituted, re-constituted, re-delimited various panchayat circles situated In Banswara, Bhilwara, Barmer, Chittorgarh, Churu, Dungarpur, Gangarragar, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jodhpur, Nagaur, Pali, Rajsamand and Udaipur districts. By the impugned respective notifications dated 10-9-1992 pertaining to afore-mentioned districts, the State Government has included certain areas in panchayat circles, or excluded certain areas from one panchyat circle to another panchayat circle, established new panchayat circles and also shifted head quarters of various Gram Panchayat circles. The State has also abolished/merged panchayat circle Pilowani into a newly created panchayat circle Gendi in District Pali. 2. Since impugned notifications pertaining to aforesaid districts have been challenged on similar/identical grounds and challenged the exercise conducted by the State Government under Sections 3,4,70,86 and 87 (2) of the Act and Rr. 342 to 345 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (in short the Rules, 1961) and common points of law are involved therein, these writ petitions are being decided by a common order. 3. It will serve no useful purpose to delineate the facts in all the cases which follow more or less on the same lines. However, it will be conducive to briefly lay down the facts common in all the writ petitions. It appears that by order No. F. 15(1)Gravi P/Punarsima/91/ 834 D/- 4th April, 91 Annexure-R1, the State Government took a suo motu decision to establish, reconstitute/re-delimit Panchayat circles and Panchayat Samities in the State and issued certain guidelines to all the Collectors. The guidelines for that were that the population of each panchayat circle should be between 3000 to 5000 on the basis of the census figures for the year 1981, that none of the villages in a panchayat circle should be situated beyond 8 Kms. The guidelines for that were that the population of each panchayat circle should be between 3000 to 5000 on the basis of the census figures for the year 1981, that none of the villages in a panchayat circle should be situated beyond 8 Kms. from its panchayat headquarter; that in each panchayat circle, there should be at least five wards and on an average, each ward should be formed having a population of about 500 but the population should not be less than 400 and not more than 600. The State Government also fixed 36th June, 1991 as the last date for sending the proposals by the Collector, but subsequently, this date was extended from time to time. Further directions were also given to the Collectors in this behalf vide letter dated 2nd August, 1991 Annexure-R/2, whereby it was proposed to have the panchayat circles generally having population between 2000 to 5000, but the population could exceed even 5000 in case the panchyat circle consisted of only one village. It was directed that the Collectors after examining the matter should publish their proposals and those should be placed in offices of the Collectors, Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samities and also displayed on the notice boards of the affected panchayat circles. Those proposals could also be given wide publicity through other media asking the general public to file their objections before the Collector, S.D.O. or the Tehsildar upto 15-9-1991. It was further directed that the Collector, if necessary, should also give personal hearing to any objector and that after examining all objections/recommendations should finalise his proposals and send those to the Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj, who is the officer in charge of the Panchayats. In pursuance thereof, the Collectors after consulting Panchayat Samities, Panchayat Circles and examining various objections/recommendations so received sent their proposals to the Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department, who in his turn after examining those proposals submitted his recommendations to the State Government. In pursuance thereof, the Collectors after consulting Panchayat Samities, Panchayat Circles and examining various objections/recommendations so received sent their proposals to the Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department, who in his turn after examining those proposals submitted his recommendations to the State Government. It appears that the State Government after considering the proposals of Collectors and the recommendations of the officer in-charge of Panchayats by its letter dated 15-2-1992 Annexure-R/3 sent draft proposals in this behalf to the Collectors directing them to publish those proposals by placing copies thereof in offices of the concerned Panchayat Circles, Panchayat Samities, Zila Parishads, Tehsildar, S.D.O. and Collector for inspection and to publish notices inviting objections on those draft proposals from the general public. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 70, of the Act by a notification dated 18-2-1992 Annexure-4 published in the Rajasthan Gazette, delegated its powers enumerated under Sections 3, 4,86 and 87 (2) of the Act to Shri Rajendra Jain, the then Development Commissioner, who issued a notification dated 24-2-1992 under Section 86 of the Act to the effect that the State Government on its own motion proposed to establish/reconstitute/ rede-limit various panchayat circles and invited objections from the general public in respect of those draft proposals to be filed within one month to the respective Collectors. It was also notified that the draft proposals were available for inspection in the concerned panchayat circles, Panchayat Samities, Zila Parishads. It further appears that the State Government proposed to hold panchayat elections at an early date and huge number of objections were received. Therefore, the State Government in public interest further delegated its powers in this behalf under Section 70, of the Act to eleven more senior IAS officers vide notification dated 21-5-1992 Annexure-R/5 and also allocated district-wise areas to Shri Rajendra Jain and other delegates. It is alleged that the aforementioned twelve delegatees visited their respective allotted districts fixed date and place of their sittings, heard objections and after taking into consideration various objections filed in this behalf and examining those, either dropped the draft proposals or confirmed or varied those and submitted their final decisions to the State Government. On that basis, the State Government issued impugned notifications dated 10-2-1992 pertaining to different districts, which were published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 12-9-1992 (11-9-1992). 4. On that basis, the State Government issued impugned notifications dated 10-2-1992 pertaining to different districts, which were published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 12-9-1992 (11-9-1992). 4. Now briefly the facts of the following writ petitions as illustrations : 5. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6132/92 "Mod Singh v. State of Rajasthan. " Petitioner Mod Singh is the Ex-Ward Panch of Panchayat Circle, Dhawa of district Jodhpur. He along with other petitioners is also the resident of village Daipada Khichiya. In this case, as per draft proposal vide notification dated 24-2-1992 Annexure-1, Gram Panchayat, Dawa, which earlier consisted of seven villages as specified in Col. No. 5 was to be bifurcated into two panchayat circles namely Daipada Khichiya Panchayat Circle, consisting of village Daipada Khichiya, Senai and Sevaia and Dhawa Panchayat Circle, consisting of villages Dhawa, Modathali, Melba and Chali. It was also proposed that the headquarter of Panchayat Circle, Daipada Khichiya will be at village Daipada Khichiya. This proposal was in pursuance of the recommendation made by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Duni vide his letter dated 2-8-1991 Annexure-R/2. It is alleged that since the inhabitants of villages, Daipada Khichiya, Senai and Sevaia had no objections to the said proposal, no objection was preferred by them. However, the State Government vide its impugned notification dated 10-9-1992 instead of bifurcating the Panchayat Circle, Dhawa into two Gram Panchayat Circles retained the Gram Panchayat Circle, Dhawa consisting of seven villages including Daipada Khichiya having its' Head Quarterat village Dhawa. The grievance of the petitioners is that the villagers of Daipada Khichiya, Senai and Sevaia had no objection to the proposal made by the Collector, which was published as draft proposal Annexure-1. They, therefore, did not file any objection, but the State Delegatee without affording them any opportunity of hearing arbitrarily and without notifying that one Panchayat Circle Dhawa was to be retained and that no new Panchayat Circle, Daipada was to be constituted, dropped the draft proposal and in contravention of the guidelines issued by the State Government issued the impugned notification. According to them village Daipada is at a distance about 9 Kms. from-village Dhawa, the head quarter of the panchayat circle. Thus, the impugned notification dated 10-9-1992 offends the principle of natural justice and contravenes the provisions of Section 86 (1) and Rr. According to them village Daipada is at a distance about 9 Kms. from-village Dhawa, the head quarter of the panchayat circle. Thus, the impugned notification dated 10-9-1992 offends the principle of natural justice and contravenes the provisions of Section 86 (1) and Rr. 342 to 345 of the Rules, 1961, and, therefore, the impugned notification be declared invalid and quashed and the respondent State be directed to constitute two panchyat circles as per draft proposal. 6. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5666/92 Kundan Mai v. State of Rajasthan . In this writ petition, petitioners claim to be social workers and devoted to the welfare of their area. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be Ex. Sarpanch and Ex-Ward Panch of Panchyat Circle, Pandrautal, District Churu. Previously the Panchayat circle, Pandrautal consisted of eight villages namely. Pandrautal, Pandrautibe, Sukhwasi, Rojni, Ghasla Athuna, Ghasla Aguna, Jhotra, Banra and Haripura and its population as per 1981 census was 4790. in pursuance of Government notification dated 2-8-1991 Annexure-R/2, the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Taranagar vide his letter dated 17-8-1991 Annexure-1 sent a proposal to the Collector that panchayat Circle, Pandrautal be bifurcated into two Panchayat circles namely Pandrautal, consisting of villages Pandrautal, Pandrau Tiba, Sukhwasi, Ghasla Athuna, Banra and Haripura and another new panchyat circle Jhotra, consisting of villages Jhotra, Ghasla Aguna, Rojni and Shivpura. According to that proposal, the population of panchyat Circle, Pandrautal and Jhotra as per census figure of 1981 was 2929 and 2124 respectively. It is alleged that the Collector considered the proposal made by Vikas Adhikari and invited objections but no objection was filed. However, the Collector sent his proposal Annexure-3 that the existing panchayat circle Pandrautal be bifurcated into three panchayat circles, Pandrautal, consisting of villages Pandrautal, Pandrau Tiba, Sukhwasi and Ghasla Athuna having population of 1964 and another panchayat circle, Jhotra consisting of villages Jhotra, Ghasla Aguna, Shivpura and Rojni having population of 2124 and the third panchayat circle, Bhanin consisting of villages Bhajnin, Banra and Haripura having population of 2548. The State Government issued the same as draft proposal vide notification Annexure-4 inviting objections within one month. Thereupon, the residents of the area made objections-cum-suggestions in a consolidated form Annexure-5'for the entire tehsil. The State Government issued the same as draft proposal vide notification Annexure-4 inviting objections within one month. Thereupon, the residents of the area made objections-cum-suggestions in a consolidated form Annexure-5'for the entire tehsil. It is alleged that Smt. Khushal Singh, the State Delegatee, considered those objections and expressed her opinion that the proposal sent by the Collector, Churu was quite reasonable in presence of petitioner No. 1 and others. Since the petitioners and other villagers were satisfied by that proposal, they did not make any objection to the draft proposal. However, to their utter surprise, the State Government published the final notification dated 10-9-1992, wherein panchayat circle, Pandrautal was reconstituted as panchayat circle, Pandrautal consisting of eight villages excluding village Haripura and the proposed new Panchayat Circle, Jhotra was not established. Petitioners have alleged that village Rojni is about 10 Kms. away from the head quarter Pandrautal. Similarly, village Jhotra and Khasla Aguna are at a distance of more than 9 Kms. The petitioners have contended that the impugned notification has been issued against the guidelines issued by the State Government, and prayed that the same be set aside and the State Government be directed to bifurcate the Panchayat Circle, Pandrautal as per the proposals given by the Collector, Churu or in any other form by which a separate panchayat circle, Jhotra is created. 7. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5294/92 "Narpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others. " The petitioner is resident of village Pilowani. He has filed this writ petition in his personal capacity as well as for safeguarding the interest of the residents of the said village. He has alleged that the panchayat circle, Pilowani, consisting of only one village Pilowani, was established since 1955 and that it was efficiently managing the panchayat administration. Village Pilowani has a Pucca Panchayat ghar and a cattle pond, a secondary school, sub-primary Health Centre, Upkrishi Mandi and head quarter of Revenue Inspector as also headquarter of Patwari. It is alleged that the village Pilowani has a deposit of about Rs. 15 lacks in the post office saving bank. Thus, there was no reason to abolish such an efficiently managed panchayat circle. It is alleged that the village Pilowani has a deposit of about Rs. 15 lacks in the post office saving bank. Thus, there was no reason to abolish such an efficiently managed panchayat circle. However, the State Government notified the draft proposal merging the existing panchyat circle Gendi having a population of 1914 and panchayat circle Pilowani having a population of 1685 and proposed to establish a panchayat circle, Gendi consisting of villages Gendi and Pilowani with its head quarter at Gendi. The villagers of village Gendi filed their objections dated 10-3-1992 Annexure-1 to the Collector, Pali. Villagers of Rugdi, who were under the Panchayat Circle, Sawalta also submitted their Objections dated 10-3-1992 praying that their village Rudgi be included in the panchayat circle, Pilowani. It is alleged that Ex Sarpanch of Panchayat Circle, Gendi and the villagers thereof further submitted their objections before Shri D. C. Samant, the State Delegatee, praying that the village Rugdi be included in Panchayat Circle, Pilowani and that Panchayat Circle, Gendi be kept separate having its head quarter at village Gendi. But their objections were overruled. The petitioner has submitted that in Panchayat Samiti, Rani previously 30 panchayat circles were existing and that due to increase in population, more panchayat circles have been established in various Panchayat Samities throughout the State. But the State Government vide its impugned notification dated 10-9-1992 Annexure-4 has reduced number of panchayat circles from 30 to 29 in Panchayat Samiti. Rani by abolishing panchayat circle Pilowanit and merged the same in panchayat circle, Gendi. The petitioner claims that the State Government has no authority or jurisdiction to abolish an existing panchayat because the provisions of the Act do not provide for such abolition of a panchayat circle and that an existing panchayat circle cannot be abolished in the garb of reconstitution, rede-limitation of any panchayat circle. The petitioner asserts that there was no rationale and reasonability in abolishing the panchayat circle, Pilowani, which was in existence since 1955 on the ground of having lesser population because villages Devali, Siwas and Gendi also have population less than 2000. The petitioner asserts that there was no rationale and reasonability in abolishing the panchayat circle, Pilowani, which was in existence since 1955 on the ground of having lesser population because villages Devali, Siwas and Gendi also have population less than 2000. The petitioner urges that the abolition of panchayat circle, Pilowani is totally against the spirit, aims and objects of Panchayati Raj System and as such the impugned notification is wholly illegal, void, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional, which should be quashed and the State Government be directed to continue the panchayat circle at Pilowani. 8. In other writ petitions, the petitioners have objected to the inclusion, exclusion or transfer of certain villages in other panchayat circles or establishment of new panchyat circles or shifting of the headquarters of the panchayat circles. Their common grievance is that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to them nor their objections were duly considered. They have alleged that the impugned notifications have been issued ignoring the guidelines formulated by the State Government, thus, there is violation of principle of natural justice and that the action of the State Government in issuing the impugned notifications is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable, which offends the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. 9. The respondents in their replies have categorically denied the factual positions asserted by petitioners and claimed that the establishment, reconstitution, re-delimitation and formation of a panchayat circle is the legislative process/function under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 1961 and that the State Government is fully competent to constitute, reconstitute and re-delimit the panchayat circles. It has been pointed out that the petitioners have not challenged the validity of the provisions of the Act and the Rules relating to the formation, constitution, reconstitution and re-delimitation of the panchayat circles and therefore, these writ petitions are not maintainable. It has been claimed that since the establishment, reconstitution and rede-limitation of panchyat circles is a legislative function of the State, the principles of natural justice do not apply, and that no one has a right to be heard before making a legislation whether primary or delegated, unless it is provided by the Statute. Similarly, the subordinate legislation can also not be questioned on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Similarly, the subordinate legislation can also not be questioned on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It has been further claimed that the right to elect or to be elected though provided for by the Constitution, is not a fundamental right nor even a common law right. On the other hand, it is a right created by the Statute and is entirely governed by the provisions of such a statute. The respondents have categorically asserted that the provisions of Rr. 342 to 345 of the Rules, 1961 as also the provisions of Section 86 of the Act have been substantially and effectively complied with and that all the objections, which were filed in pursuance to the draft proposals were duly considered by the State Delegatees and thereafter the impugned notifications were published in the Gazette. The respondents have contended that in these writ petitions, many disputed questions of fact have been raised, which cannot be decided under the writ jurisdiction. They have maintained that the State Government is fully empowered to merge one panchayat circle into another. 10. I have heard learned Advocates for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Advocate General at length and perused the original relevant record of the aforementioned districts in extenso. 11. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the draft proposals have been unreasonably, unfairly and arbitrarily dropped, varied or changed by the State Delegatees without affording any opportunity of hearing to the villagers concerned or to the persons, who had earlier filed objections before the Tehsildar/S.D.O./Collector. It has also been contended that in certain writ petitions, that since the petitioners were satisfied with the proposals made by the Collector, which were published as draft proposals by the State Government, there was no necessity for them to have filed objections and that tine State Delegatees completely ignoring those draft proposals have arbitrarily ordered for the establishment, reconstitution, or re-delimitation of various panchayat circles ignoring the guidelines formulated by the State Government in this behalf. It has been asserted that in many panchayat circles, some constituent villages are situated at a distance of more than eight kms. It has been asserted that in many panchayat circles, some constituent villages are situated at a distance of more than eight kms. from the headquarters of the panchayat circles and that the State Delegatees have also arbitrarily shifted the headquarters of many panchayat circles ignoring relevant factors like population and other facilities of public utility available at a particular village, it has been vehemently urged that the impugned notifications are patently arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair and against the well crystallised principle of audi alteram partem and, therefore, those be quashed. 12. Mr. Mridul has also argued that since by the exercise undertaken by the State u/S. 86 of the Act only some area of existing panchayat circle has either been included in another panchayat circle or excluded from one panchayat circle or transferred from one panchayat circle to another panchayat circle, therefore, by the reconstitution /re-delimitation of the panchayat circles, inhabitants of those panchayat circles have not been subjected to the provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities Act or any other Act and as such the act of State Government cannot be termed as legislative function and principle of natural justice apply. According to him, the provisions of Rr. 342 to 345 as also Section 86 of the Act have also been contravened. Even the guidelines formulated by the State for reconstitution/re-limitation of the panchayat circles have been flagrantly flouted. According to him, since the petitioners were satisfied with the draft proposal notification, there was no necessity for them to have filed any objections under R. 344 of Rules 1961, but the State Delegatee without affording any opportunity of hearing to them abruptly changed the draft proposal and finalised entirely a new proposal. The action of the State in issuing the impugned notification is unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and against the principle of audi alteram partem. 13. On the other hand, Mr. L. S. Udawat, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the establishment, reconstitution, delimitation of panchayat circles is a function legislative in character and principle of natural justice cannot be pressed into service for such an exercise, that the provisions of Rr. 13. On the other hand, Mr. L. S. Udawat, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the establishment, reconstitution, delimitation of panchayat circles is a function legislative in character and principle of natural justice cannot be pressed into service for such an exercise, that the provisions of Rr. 342 to 345 of the Rules 1961 and the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 86 and 87 (2) and other provisions of the Act have been fully complied with; that the proposals were duly processed and examined at the level of Collector, by the Officer-in-charge of panchayats as also by the State Government and thereafter draft proposals were issued under R. 344 (1) inviting objections within a month; that in pursuance thereof, large number of objections were received, which were duly considered and decided by the State Delegatees in their allotted District on pre-notified dates and places. According to him the State Delegatees, who enjoyed the powers of the State Government, after considering the draft proposals, objections and other relevant factors, were fully competent either to drop the draft proposal or to confirm or vary the same and that it was not ai all necessary for the State Government to have again issued the proposals so finalised and invited further objections. According to him in the State, more than 9000 panchayat circles have been reconstituted and only a few hundred writ petitions have been filed at the principal seat, Jodhpur and at the Jaipur Bench, which also indicates that impugned action of State is fair, just and proper and not arbitrary. He has submitted that after filing of these writ petitions, the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short the Act 1994) has come into force w.e.f. 23rd April, 1994 and the Act and the Rules, 1961 have now been repealed and in view of the provisions of Section 124 of the Act, 1994, the new Panchayat Circles in pursuance of impugned notifications are functioning as the Panchayati Raj Institution under the Act, 1994. He has further submitted that in exercise of the power u/S. 119 of the Act/1994, State Election Commission has already been constituted and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules. 1994 have been enacted. He has further submitted that in exercise of the power u/S. 119 of the Act/1994, State Election Commission has already been constituted and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules. 1994 have been enacted. The Election Commissioner has appointed several officers to proceed with the process of notifying constituencies for Zila Parishads, Panchayat Samities, Wards and Gram Panchayats as per the requirement of the Act, 1994 and the rules made thereunder and that such constituencies have already been notified and constituted. Therefore, all the existing panchayat circles in Rajasthan, which existed under the Act, have now become successor Panchayat circles and are being governed by the Act, 1994. Therefore, these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 14. I have given my most anxious and careful consideration to the rival submissions. First of all, it will be appropriate to point out the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules 1961. Section 2(4) of the Act lays down that "panchayat" means a panchayat established under the Act. Section 2(5) proclaims that "panchayat circle" means the local area over which a panchayat exercises jurisdiction while Section 2(14) says that 'village' means local area recorded as a village in the revenue records of the district in which it is situated. Section 3 deals with establishment of panchayats. Subsection (1) of Section 3, proclaims that the State Government may by notification in the official gazette establish a panchayat for a village or a part of the village or a group of villages not included within the limits of a municipality. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 empowers the State Government by issuing a notification in the official gazette to establish a panchayat for the whole or a part of any area included within the limits of a municipality that include any such area or part in a panchayat circle with which we are not concerned in deciding these writ petitions. 15. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 empowers the State Government by issuing a notification in the official gazette to establish a panchayat for the whole or a part of any area included within the limits of a municipality that include any such area or part in a panchayat circle with which we are not concerned in deciding these writ petitions. 15. Section 86 runs as under:Power to include, exclude or transfer areas : "(1) The State Government may at any time after one month's notice published in the prescribed manner, either on its own motion or, at the request of the panchayat or of the residents of any panchayat Circle, village or other area, and by notification in the Official Gazette:- (a) include any area in a Panchayat Circle; (b) exclude any area from a Panchayat Circle; or (c) transfer any area from one Panchayat Circle to another: Provided that the publication of the said notice, may, if deemed expedient in public interest by the State Government, be dispensed with in a case involving transfer (which term shall include the constitution, reconstitution or re-delimitation of a Panchayat Circle) of any area from one panchayat Circle to another. (1-A) xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) Any area included in a Panchayat Circle under-sub-section (1), shall become subject to this Act and all notifications, rules, bye-laws and orders made under this Act in respect of such Circle from the date on which such inclusion is to take effect. (3) Any area excluded from a Panchayat Circle under sub-section (1), shall cease to be subject to this Act and to all notifications, rules, bye-laws and orders made under this Act in respect of such Circle from the date on which such exclusion is to take effect. (4) Any area transferred under-sub-section (1) from any Panchayat Circle to another shall, with effect from the date on which such transfer is to take effect, cease to be subject to the Panchayat which previously to such transfer had jurisdiction therein and to the notifications, rules, bye-laws and orders applicable thereto. The Panchayat to which such area is so transferred shall exercise jurisdiction therein with effect from the said date and all notifications, rules, bye-laws and orders applicable to the latter Panchayat shall apply to that area. The Panchayat to which such area is so transferred shall exercise jurisdiction therein with effect from the said date and all notifications, rules, bye-laws and orders applicable to the latter Panchayat shall apply to that area. (5) When any area is transferred under sub-section (1), the State Government shall place at the disposal of the Panchayat to whose jurisdiction such area has been transferred, such portion of the property and funds, as it may deem fit of the Panchayat from whose jurisdiction that area has been transferred. (6) When an order under sub-section (1) is passed, the State Government shall also, if it considers necessary, order re-elections or confirm the existing Panchayat for the altered area. (7) When an order under sub-section (1) has been or is passed and the State Government order under sub-section (6), the re-election of Panchas to the Panchayat for the altered area, it may issue further directions in respect of the number of the Panchas which such panchayat shall consist of and in respect of other matter incidental to, or consequential upon, such re-elections and the term of the Panchayat thereby reconstituted shall be for the residue of the term for which the existing Panchayat would have held, office if re-election had not been ordered under sub-section (6)." 16. Section 86, thus authorises the State Government to include any area in a panchayat circle. The term "any area" may be the total area of a panchayat circle. This section further authorises the State Government to exclude any area from one panchayat circle to another. The State Government may do so at any time after one month's notice published in the prescribed manner either on its own motion or at the request of panchayat or residents of any panchayat circle village or other area. Subsections (2) to (5) deal with the consequences of such inclusion of any area in a panchayat circle or exclusion or transfer of any area from one panchayat circle to another. The term "transfer" also includes the constitution, reconstitution or re-delimitation of a panchayat circle as per provision to Section 86 (1) of the Act. 17. Subsections (2) to (5) deal with the consequences of such inclusion of any area in a panchayat circle or exclusion or transfer of any area from one panchayat circle to another. The term "transfer" also includes the constitution, reconstitution or re-delimitation of a panchayat circle as per provision to Section 86 (1) of the Act. 17. Section 87 (1) of the Act says that every panchayat shall, by the name notified in the official gazette, be a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal and shall, subject to any restrictions and conditions imposed by or under this Act or any other law, have power to acquire by purchase, gift or otherwise, to hold, administer and transfer property both movable or immovable and to enter into any contract, and shall, by the said name, sue and be sued. 18. Sub-section (2) of Section 87 declares that the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the official gazette, change the name of any such Panchayat. 19. Therefore, it is abundantly apparent that under Section 86 (1) (a), even the entire area of a panchayat circle can be included/ merged in another panchayat circle and the State Government may even change the name of such panchayat. 20. Section 89 (1), empowers the State Government to make rules consistent with the Act to carry out the purpose thereof. Section 89 (3) requires that all rules made under the Act after the 1st April, 1960, shall be laid as soon as may be after they are so made, before the House of the State Legislature, while it is in Session, fora period of not less than fourteen days the House of State Legislature may make any modification in any of such rules. 21. The State Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 89 read with other sections of the Act framed Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. Thus, the Rules, 1961 are statutory rules. 22. Rules. 342 to 345 deal with transfer, inclusion and exclusion of areas and run as under: "342. Preliminary examination on requests or proposals for action under Section 86 (1): (1) Upon receipt of request under Section 86, sub-section (1), the Collector will be required to examine the same and to send a report to the officer in-charge of Panchayats. 22. Rules. 342 to 345 deal with transfer, inclusion and exclusion of areas and run as under: "342. Preliminary examination on requests or proposals for action under Section 86 (1): (1) Upon receipt of request under Section 86, sub-section (1), the Collector will be required to examine the same and to send a report to the officer in-charge of Panchayats. (2) Whenever the State Government or such officer or authority to whom the powers of the State suit may have been delegated itself proposes to take action under Section 86, subsection (1), the Collector will be required to examine the proposal and to send a report to the officer-in-charge of Panchayats. 343. Recommendation of Officer-in-charge : On receiving the report of the Collector under Rule 342, the officer-in-charge of Panchayats shall consider the same and submit his recommendations in the matter to the State Government or such officer or authority to whom the powers of the State Government may have been delegated. 344. Issue and publication of notice : (1) If after considering the report of the Collector and the recommendations of the officer-in-charge of Panchayats the State Government or such officer or authority to whom the powers of the State Government have been delegated to make any transfer, inclusion or exclusion under sub-section (1) of Section 86, it shall cause to be issued, as required by that sub-section, a notice inviting objections to the proposed transfer, inclusion or exclusion within a month from the date of the publication of the notice under sub-rule (2). (2) A copy of the notice under sub-rule (1) shall be pasted at a conspicuous place in each of the areas affected thereby and at the office of each Panchayat and Panchayat Samiti concerned. 345. Consideration of objections and final action: (1) After considering the objections, if any, received in response to the notice under rule 344, the State Government or such officer or authority to whom the powers of the State Government may have been delegated may either drop the proposal notified therein or may confirm or vary the same. 345. Consideration of objections and final action: (1) After considering the objections, if any, received in response to the notice under rule 344, the State Government or such officer or authority to whom the powers of the State Government may have been delegated may either drop the proposal notified therein or may confirm or vary the same. (2) If the proposal is not dropped, the State Government shall cause a final notification to be issued and published in the Official Gazette and such publication shall be conclusive evidence of the transfer, inclusion or exclusion thereby made, unless the same is subsequently cancelled or superseded in like manner, as from a date specified in such notification." 23. A careful perusal of these rules indicates that whenever the State Government proposes to take action u/S. 86 of the Act on its own motion, the Collector will be required to examine the proposals for including, excluding or transferring any such area and to send his report to the officer-in-charge of panchayats i.e. the Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj. On receiving the report proposal of the Collector u/R. 342, the officer-in-charge of Panchayats is required to consider the same and send his recommendation in the matter to the State Government or such officer or authority to whom the powers of the State Government may have been delegated. If after considering the report of the Collector and the recommendation of the officer-in-charge of the panchayats, the State Government or its Delegatee proposes to include any area in a panchayat circle, exclude any area from the panchayat circle or transfer any area from one panchayat circle to another, it is required to issue a notice u/S. 86 (1) of the Act inviting objections to the proposed transfer, which term also includes the constitution, reconstitution and re-delimitation of a panchayat circle, of any area from one Panchayat Circle to another, inclusion of any area in a panchayat circle or exclusion of an area from a panchayat Circle. The objections are to be filed within a month from the date of the publication of such notice. Copy of such notice issued u/S. 86 (1) of the Act is required to be pasted at a conspicuous place in each of the areas affected thereby and at the office of each Panchayats concerned and the panchayat Samiti concerned. The objections are to be filed within a month from the date of the publication of such notice. Copy of such notice issued u/S. 86 (1) of the Act is required to be pasted at a conspicuous place in each of the areas affected thereby and at the office of each Panchayats concerned and the panchayat Samiti concerned. After objections are filed in pursuance of the notice u/S. 86(1) of the Act, the State Government or its Delegatee is required to examine and consider the objections and authorised either to drop the proposal or confirm or vary the same. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the State Government or its Delegatee is not duty bound to accept either the proposal of the Collector or the recommendation of officer-in-charge of Panchayats or the draft proposal issued u/S. 86 (1) of the Act in to to even if no objection is filed. On the other hand, after considering the objections, if any, the State Government or its Delegatee is legally empowered either to drop the proposal notified u/S. 86 (1) or to confirm or vary the same. If the proposal notified u/S. 86 (1) is not dropped then the State Government shall issue a final notification, which should be published in the official gazette and such publication shall be conclusive evidence of such transfer, inclusion or exclusion of area, unless the same is subsequently cancelled or superseded. Therefore, if the final notification u/S. 86 (2) is subsequently cancelled or superseded only then the exercise u/s. 86 (1) of the Act r/w Rr. 342 to 345 of the Rules, 1961 has to be undertaken de novo and not otherwise. Therefore, I do not find any substance of force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners/villagers were satisfied, with the draft proposal included in the draft notification issued u/S. 86(1) of the Act, they did not choose to file any objection and that thereafter the State Government or its Delegatee had no right to drop or vary the draft: proposal without affording them any opportunity of hearing anti without again issuing notification u/S. 86 (1) of the Act inviting objections for such a change. 24. 24. Now let us find out whether the establishment of a panchayat circle or merging a panchayat circle into another panchayat circle or inclusion of any area in a panchayat circle or exclusion of any area from a panchayat circle or transfer, which includes the constitution, re-constitution or re-delimitation of a panchayat circle, of any area from one panchayat circle to another, is a mere administrative act of the State or is a function of legislative character and whether for such an exercise, principles of natural justice apply? 25. The State Government under Sections 3 and 86 of the Act is competent and empowered to establish, constitute, reconstitute and delimit any panchayat circle and to include any area in a panchayat circle, exclude or transfer any area in a panchayat circle or from one panchayat circle to another after following the prescribed procedure. 26. In the Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd v. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur ( AIR 1980 SC 882 ) , the notification dated 22-8-1955 was challenged, whereby the area in which the sugar factory was situated, was declared as town area. Section 3 of the U. P. Town Area Act, 1914 made the provisions for declaration and definition of town areas. It was contended that Section 3 of the said Act by necessary implication imposed a duty on the State Government to follow the principles of natural justice. Their Lordships observed that the said contention was based on assumption that the duty imposed on the State Government was of the nature of administrative power in exercise of which the State Government should follow the principles of natural justice. Their Lordships then proceeded to examine the question as to what was the nature of function which was performed by the State Government u/S. 3, and declared in most unambiguous, clear and cogent terms that the power of the State Government to make a declaration to define a town area u/S. 3 of the said Act was in the nature of conditional legislation and that the rule of 'audi alteram partem' did not apply. 27. The Division Bench of this Court in Ms. 27. The Division Bench of this Court in Ms. J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Municipal Board, Nimbahera 1989 (2) RLR 589 , relying on the principle of law enunciated in Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515 and Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra AIR 1990 SC 261 has held that the inclusion of a new area within a municipal area by the State Government is legislative in character and that in such a legislative process, principles of natural justice are not applicable. There is no provision of law or any case law to the effect that establishment, reconstitution, delimitation of a panchayat Circle, where the area included excluded or transferred is only an area of panchayat and not an area of Municipality, shall not be a function of the State legislative in character. In my considered opinion the exercise undertaken u/S. 3 and 86 of the Act r/w. Rules 342 to 345 of the Rules, 4961 amounts to a delegated legislation and principle of audi alteram partem cannot be pressed into service except to the extent provided under those provisions. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right for an opportunity of hearing for all the final decisions taken by the State Government or State Delegatee in dropping the draft proposal issued u/S. 86(1) of the Act or in varying or altering the same. 28. I have carefully perused the entire record of the exercise undertaken by the State Government u/Rr. 342 to 345 of the Rules, 1961 and Sections 86 and 87 (2) of the Act pertaining to each district to which these writ petitions pertain. It includes the initial proposals submitted by the Collector, the recommendations of the Director, Panchayati Raj Institution, the draft proposal issued by the State Government accepting that recommendation, the various objections on the draft notification and orders passed by the respective State Delegatees after examining the proposals and considering the objections, in my considered opinion, the respondents have faithfully and effectively complied with the provision of Rr. 342 to 345 and Sections 86 and 87 (2) of the Act in letter and spirit and considered and decided all available objections before taking a final decision u/R. 345(2) of the Rules, 1961 r/w. Section 86 of the Act. 29. 342 to 345 and Sections 86 and 87 (2) of the Act in letter and spirit and considered and decided all available objections before taking a final decision u/R. 345(2) of the Rules, 1961 r/w. Section 86 of the Act. 29. Shri Mridul has vehemently contended that In Mod Singh's writ petition (supra), since the villagers/petitioners were satisfied with the draft proposal published u/R. 344 (1), they did not file any objection because they legitimately expected that those draft proposals will be approved/confirmed and finalised, but to their utter surprise the State Government vide impugned notification dated 10-9-1992, finalised an entirely new proposal adversely affecting the interests of petitioners, thus, the State has acted unreasonably, unfairly and arbitrarily. He has submitted that such a legitimate expectation is a right guaranteed under Article 14, which has been offended and, therefore, the impugned notification be quashed. He has placed reliance on Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation AIR 1994 SC 990. 29-A. I am not impressed by this argument. Firstly, u/R. 345 (1) of Rules, 1961, the State Government or State Delegatee was legally competent and authorised either to drop the draft proposal notified u/R. 344 (1) or to confirm or vary the same. Secondly, in the process or reconstitution/delimitation of a Panchayat Circle, residents of other constituent villages also have their respective interests and they can file objections. The State Delegatee had notified the date and place of his sitting for considering the objections. Therefore, the petitioners, if they were vigilant to watch the interest of their village or the proposal for which they were satisfied, ought to have been present before the State Delegatee, at the time of consideration of various objections so received and finalisation of proposals, but they did not do so. To my mind, the petitioners did not have any right of legitimate expectancy and the State has acted fairly, reasonably and not arbitrarily in finalising the Proposals and issuing the impugned notification. Thus the impugned notification does not offend the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Hindustan Development Corpn. (supra), the Rly. Board invited tenders for entering into contract with manufacturers for cast steel bodies, which are used in turn for building wagons. The Board adopted dual pricing for small and big entrepreneurs. Thus the impugned notification does not offend the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Hindustan Development Corpn. (supra), the Rly. Board invited tenders for entering into contract with manufacturers for cast steel bodies, which are used in turn for building wagons. The Board adopted dual pricing for small and big entrepreneurs. The Apex Court has dealt in details about the doctrine of legitimate expectancy and its applicability and held that it can be denied if over riding public interest exists. Therefore, the facts of the afore cited case are poles apart with the case on hand. 30. The next limb of the arguments of Mr. Mridul is that it is a well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standard by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. For this, he has placed reliance on the rule enunciated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Vitarelli v. Seat on (1959) 359 US 535 , quoted in para 10 in Raman Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628 . I respectfully agree with this dictum of law but as mentioned earlier, the act of the State Government in establishing/reconstituting/re-delimiting the panchayat circles is of legislative character and not purely an administrative or executive action and the said action is not in contravention of the provisions of Rr. 342 to 345 of the Rules, 1961 and Sections 3,86 and 87 (2) of the Act. R. D. Shetty's case (supra) was in respect of the tenders called for running a restaurant and snack bar at airport by the International Airport Authority of India. Therefore, this case does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. 31. Another case cited by Mr. Mridul is Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U. P. Financial Corporation 1992 (2) JT (SC) 326. In that case, the appellant had taken a loan from the U. P. Financial Corporation for construction of a rice mill. The Financial Corporation paid the loan in instalments by hypothecating the rice mill but did not advance other annual instalments of loan. The appellant could not repay the loan and the Corporation took over the possession of the rice mill. The Financial Corporation paid the loan in instalments by hypothecating the rice mill but did not advance other annual instalments of loan. The appellant could not repay the loan and the Corporation took over the possession of the rice mill. It was held that Section 29 of the U. P. Financial Corporation Act confers very wide power on the Corporation to take over the possession and the Management of the Defaulting Units to ensure prompt payment but its employees or officers are bound to act reasonably and fairly in dealing with the property of the debtor and that the test of reasonableness is more strict and that if the Government action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and fairness and is arbitrary then it is liable to be struck down. There cannot be two opinions about this principle of law, enunciated by the Apex Court. But the facts of the writ petitions on hand are clearly distinguishable with the facts of Mahesh Chandra's (supra). Moreover, from the record, it cannot be held that the action of the respondents in Issuing the impugned notification was either unreasonable, unfair, arbitrary or without jurisdiction. The other rulings cited by Mr. Mridul are also regarding the fairness and unreasonableness, which have no bearing in the case on hand. 32. In Jugraj v. Rajasthan State 1956 RLW 417 DB , it has been held that establishment of a Panchayat fora certain area depends upon a number of considerations, which it is very difficult to lay down in an Act of the legislature; that discretion has therefore, to be left to the executive in matters of this kind and that where such discretion is not per se liable to abuse, there is no reason why it should be said that the discretion left is a kind of unregulated and unbridled power conferred on the executive. 33. In Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija v. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 261 , the Government of Maharashtra issueda draft notification u/s. 3(3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The draft notification proposed the formation of what was termed as "Kalyan Corporation". It suggested the merging of Municipal areas of Kalyan, Ambarnath, Dombivali and Ulhasnagar. Against that proposal, many objections and representations were filed. In Ulhasnagar area, members of Sindhi community were predominant and they were interested in having a separate identity for Ulhasnagar. The draft notification proposed the formation of what was termed as "Kalyan Corporation". It suggested the merging of Municipal areas of Kalyan, Ambarnath, Dombivali and Ulhasnagar. Against that proposal, many objections and representations were filed. In Ulhasnagar area, members of Sindhi community were predominant and they were interested in having a separate identity for Ulhasnagar. They formed Union or Federation called the All India Sindhi Panchayat Federation. That Federation challenged the said draft notification by a writ petition, which was not disposed of on merits but was ordered to be withdrawn on assurance given by the Government that the representatives of the Federation should be given an opportunity of being heard before taking a final decision. They were given personal hearing on their representations. However, other persons who had filed similar representations were not heard but their objections or representations were considered. Thereupon the Government decided to exclude Ulhasnagar from the proposed Corporation and a final notification u/s. 3(2) of the Act was issued constituting a corporation excluding the Ulhasnagar. The other objectors, residents of other municipal areas challenged the said final notification by filing a writ petition on the ground that opportunity of hearing was given only to the Federation and not to other objectors, which offended Article 14. They also asserted that the establishment of Corporation without Ulhasnagar having regard to the geographical contiguity was unintelligible and incomprehensible. The High Court; without quashing the notification directed the State Government to reconsider the proposal within six months and also directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and the Federation. The Apex Court held that the conclusion of the High Court as to the need to reconsider the proposal to form the Corporation had neither the attraction of logic nor the support of law. It was further held that the function of the Government in establishing a Corporation under the Act was neither executive nor administrative but it was indeed a legislative process and that no judicial duty was laid on the Government in discharge of its statutory duties. The Apex Court further held that the only question to be examined was whether the statutory provisions have been complied with or not and it those were complied with, then the Court could say no more. The Apex Court further held that the only question to be examined was whether the statutory provisions have been complied with or not and it those were complied with, then the Court could say no more. It was observed that the Government did publish the proposal by a draft notification and also considered the representations received and it was only thereafter, a decision was taken to exclude Ulhas Nagar for the time being, the decision became final when it was notified u/s. 3(2). Their lordships specifically held that the court cannot sit in judgment over such decision nor can it lay down norms for the exercise of that power and that it cannot substitute even "its juster will for theirs". 34. In J. R. Raghupathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1681 , the State of Andhra Pradesh took decision for location of headquarters at particular places in various Mandals under the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974. Various writ Petitions were filed challenging the Government decision regarding the location of, Mandal headquarters. The Andhra Pradesh High Court interfered in the Government decision and directed the State Government to locate the Mandal headquarters at a particular place. Appeals by Special Leave were filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh before the Supreme Court. It was held that where the High Court interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the notification issued under section 3(5) of the said Act on the ground that the 'Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it, the decision of the High Court was patently illegal and liable to be quashed. It was further held that even assuming that Government while accepting the recommendation of the Cabinet Sub Committee directed the recommendation of the Cabinet Sub Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarter should be at place 'X' rather than place 'Y' as recommended by the Collector concerned, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines, which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners. The Apex Court specifically observed that the guidelines were merely in the nature of instructions issued by the State Government to the Collectors regulating the manner in which they should formulate their proposals for formation of a Revenue Mandal or for location of its headquarters, keeping in view the broad guidelines, that the guidelines had no statutory force and they were also not published in the official gazette; that the guidelines were mere departmental instructions meant for the Collectors, and that the ultimate decision as to formation of a Revenue Mandal or location of its Headquarters was with the Government. It was for that reason that the Government had issued the preliminary notification under-sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act inviting objections and suggestions that objections and suggestions were duly processed in the Secretariat and submitted to the Cabinet Sub-Committee. The note of the Collector appended to the proposal gave reasons for deviating from the guidelines in some of the aspects; that such deviation was usually for reasons of administrative convenience keeping in view the purpose and object of the Act i.e. to bring the administration near to the people. The Apex Court reiterated that the High Court had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of the State Government to locate the Mandal Headquarter at a particular place because such a decision is dependent upon various factors and the High Court could not evaluate for itself the comparative merits of a particular place as against the other for location of the Mandal Headquarters. In that case, the Andhra Pradesh Government had given certain guidelines regarding the population of the Mandal, availability of Banking facility, communication facility like Railway station or Bus Stand, PHC or Sub-Centre or any Dispensary/Indian Medicine; Veterinary Dispensary; Police Station. In that case, the Andhra Pradesh Government had given certain guidelines regarding the population of the Mandal, availability of Banking facility, communication facility like Railway station or Bus Stand, PHC or Sub-Centre or any Dispensary/Indian Medicine; Veterinary Dispensary; Police Station. Rost Office/Telephone Exchange; High School, Market Yard/ Agricultural Godown; already a Firka Headquarters and any other special qualification like availability of office accommodation, residential quarters tor the staff etc. But those guidelines were only administrative directions and not statutory. Similar are the facts of the cases on hand. Here, the State Government issued guidelines that a village should not be situated more than 8 kms. from the headquarter which are purely administrative and not statutory. Whether a particular village should be kept as Head quarter of the panchayat circle is dependent upon various factors. This Court cannot be expected to sit in appeal over the decision of the State/State Delegatee or substitute its finding in holding that as to which of the panchayat Head Quarter should be located at a particular village. 35. In D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 854/ 93, Suraj Mai Meena v. State of Rajasthan decided on 7-11-1994 by this Court at Jaipur Bench, earlier, there existed Gram Panchayat, Fusod consisting of 12 villages with its Head Quarter at Fusod. The said panchayat circle also included villages Shanawada and Ron. Thereafter, the State Government vide Its notification dated 10-9-92 bifurcated the said Gram Panchayat, Fusod into two Gram Panchayats one with the Headquarter at village Dungarli and other in village Shanawada and village Ron was included within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Shanawada. The residents of village Ron filed a writ petition for a direction to the State Government to establish the headquarter of Gram Panchayat, Shanawada at village Ron. That writ petition was dismissed by the S. B. The Division Bench dismissing the Special Appeal held that the court cannot direct the State Government to have the headquarter of a Gram Panchayat at a particular place and if at all, the petitioner was aggrieved, he could make representation to the State Government and it was for the State Government to consider that matter and not for the Court. 36. 36. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5009/94 "Kantilal v. State ", the villagers of Todi Chhoti which was included in Gram Panchayat, Saranpur, challenged the State notification dated 10-9-92 on the ground that their village was 10 kms. away from the headquarter, Saranpur and, as such, their village should not be included in that panchayat circle. This Court by its order dated 26-10-1994 dismissed the said writ petition holding that provisions of the Act authorised the State Government to constitute the Panchayat and that simply because a particular village was situated 10 kms., away from the headquarter, the inclusion of that village in the Gram Panchayat cannot be said to be mala fide act or arbitrary act on the part of the State Government. 37. In Moda Ram v. The State of Rajasthan, D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1592/92 decided on 23-7-92. the D. B. of this Court has upheld the validity of Section 86 of the Act and held that it does not suffer from any vice of uncanalised power of arbitrariness. It was also observed that the expression 'transfer' has now been extended to include the constitution, reconstitution or re-delimitation of a panchayat circle and that one month's notice u/s. 86 to the villagers is a sufficient check on the arbitrariness of the exercise of the power of the State. 38. Moreover, factual controversies raised in these writ petitions cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. 39. Therefore, when the State Government has not contravened any provisions of Rr. 342 to 345 of the Rules, 1961 and Sections 3. 86 and 87(2) of the Act, this Court cannot sit in appeal against the final decisions taken by the State Government/State Delegatees nor can it substitute its own finding as to whether which of the village area should be included in a particular panchayat circle or in which village the headquarter of a particular panchayat circle should be located or whether a particular panchayat circle, should be bifurcated into more than one panchayat circles or whether one panchayat circle should not be merged or converted into another panchayat circle and whether the name of a particular panchayat circle should be changed or not. 40. 40. From the perusal of the relevant record, I am of the considered opinion that the act of the respondents in issuing the impugned notifications has neither been unreasonable nor arbitrary nor discriminatory and those are not violative of Article 14. 41. After the repeal of the Act and coming into force of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, all the Panchayat circles established, constituted, reconstituted and re-delimited through impugned notification have become successor Panchayat Circles under the new Act. In exercise of the powers u/s. 119 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Election Commission has already been constituted and Panchayati Raj Rules, 1994 have also been enacted. The new wards and different panchayat circles have also been constituted and notified and the election of the Panchayat Raj are on the anvil, which are likely to be held in near future. 42. Hence for the reasons mentioned above, the impugned notifications dated 10-9-92 do not warrant any interference. The aforementioned writ petitions, therefore, deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petitions dismissed. *******