JUDGMENT : A.N. Divecha, J. 1. The notification issued by respondent No. 1 on behalf of respondent No. 2 under section 9(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brief) is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned notification, two gram panchayats were amalgamated and one gram panchayat by the name of Divel Gram Panchayat came to be constituted. 2. This litigation has a somewhat chequered history. There existed Divel Group Gram Panchayat with its area consisting of Divel revenue village and Kathana revenue village. By one notification issued under section 9(2) of the Act on 9th November 1987, it was bifurcated into two panchayats, namely, Divel Gram Panchayat having the area of Divel revenue village and Kathana Gram Panchayat having the area of Kathana revenue village. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. It appears that the validity of the notification at Annexure A to this petition was challenged before this court by means of Special Civil Application No. 6836 of 1987. It appears that thereafter another notification came to be issued on 28th March 1988 cancelling the Schedule attached to the notification at Annexure A to this petition and substituting it with the new Schedule. Thereby the area included in Kathana Gram Panchayat was the station area of the said village. Its copy is at Annexure B to this petition. It appears that the notification at Annexure B to this petition was also challenged before this court by means of Special Civil Application No. 2411 of 1988. By its common order passed on 23rd December 1988 in the aforesaid two petitions, this court rejected both the petitions. A copy of the aforesaid order passed by this court in the aforesaid two petitions is at Annexure C to this petition. The matter was carried in appeal before the Letters Patent Bench of this court being Letters Patent Appeal No. 532 of 1988. It came to be disposed of as withdrawn by the order passed by the Letters Patent Bench on 15th March 1989. The net effect of the order at Annexure C to this petition was acceptance of the notification at Annexure A to this petition as modified by the notification at Annexure B to this petition as a fait accompli. Surprisingly enough, for reasons best known to respondents Nos. The net effect of the order at Annexure C to this petition was acceptance of the notification at Annexure A to this petition as modified by the notification at Annexure B to this petition as a fait accompli. Surprisingly enough, for reasons best known to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, a notification came to be issued under section 9(2) of the Act on 13th April 1989 reuniting the areas of both gram panchayats of Divel and Kathana constituting one gram panchayat in the name and style of Divel Gram Panchayat. Its copy is at Annexure D to this petition. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned its validity. 3. It becomes clear from the order of this court at Annexure C to this petition that respondent No. 2 and the predecessor of respondent No. 1 herein supported the notification at Annexure A to this petition as modified by the notification at Annexure B to this petition before this court. It is somewhat strange and surprising what weighed with respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in issuing the impugned notification at Annexure D to this petition practically after obtaining the order of this court at Annexure C to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the Letters Patent Bench as aforesaid. 4. Besides, in view of the Division Bench ruling of this court in the case of Nathabhai M. Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1993(2) 34(2) G.L.R. 992, the concerned authorities are required to make effective consultation with the concerned gram panchayat before issuing a notification under section 9(2) of the Act. A bare perusal of the impugned notification at Annexure D to this petition shows absence of consultation with the gram panchayat of Kathana station area. Absence of such consultation, effective or otherwise, would render the impugned notification at Annexure D to this petition illegal and invalid. 5. It would however be difficult to accept this petition in view of the fact that the impugned notification at Annexure D to this petition was issued on 13th April 1989 and more than 6 years have rolled by since then. It has become a fait accompli. The gram panchayat constituted thereunder has become a hard reality. It is possible that elections of members of the panchayat might have also been held. Its sarpanch might have also been elected. It has become a fait accompli. The gram panchayat constituted thereunder has become a hard reality. It is possible that elections of members of the panchayat might have also been held. Its sarpanch might have also been elected. For all practical purposes, the new panchayat has been functioning for last more than 6 years. It would not be desirable to turn back the hands of the clock after it has moved so much forward. The doctrine of irreversibility will have to be applied in the instant case. 6. Shri Chhaya for the petitioner states at the Bar that the newly constituted panchayat has practically every year passed resolutions for bifurcation of the newly constituted panchayat into two panchayats as it was originally done. I am informed at the Bar by Shri Chhaya for the petitioner that the present petitioner as the sarpanch of the newly constituted panchayat got such a resolution passed as late as on 27th August 1994. Keeping this in mind and keeping in view the order of this court at Annexure C to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the Letters Patent Bench as aforesaid, respondent No. 2 deserves to be directed to take into consideration whether or not a fresh notification is required to be issued for bifurcating the newly constituted Divel Gram Panchayat into two gram panchayats as it was originally done and accepted by this court by its order at Annexure C to this petition. 7. It may be noted that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature. It may refuse to exercise its discretion even if an impugned action or order is found tainted with illegality or invalidity. I am fortified in my view by the binding Division Bench ruling of this court in the case of Saurashtra Paper and Board Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot v. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 1992(2) G.L.R. 871 . The aforesaid Division Bench ruling of this court in the case of Saurashtra Paper and Board Mills (supra) has been followed by this court in its ruling in Special Civil Application No. 2110 of 1988 decided on 20th July 1995. 8. In the result, this petition substantially fails. It is hereby rejected. reported in 1992(2) G.L.R. 871 . The aforesaid Division Bench ruling of this court in the case of Saurashtra Paper and Board Mills (supra) has been followed by this court in its ruling in Special Civil Application No. 2110 of 1988 decided on 20th July 1995. 8. In the result, this petition substantially fails. It is hereby rejected. Respondent No. 2 is however directed to consider whether or not the newly constituted panchayat in terms of the notification at Annexure D to this petition requires to be bifurcated as it was originally done in view of the resolutions passed by the newly constituted panchayat and in view of the decision of this court at Annexure C to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the Letters Patent Bench as aforesaid. It would be open to the newly constituted panchayat to make a representation for the purpose. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. Rule discharged.