( 1 ) THE petitioners are seeking a Writ of mandamus declaring the inclusion of ghanapur village in Thoguta Mandal as notified in G. O. Ms. No. 538 Revenue (Regn. and Mdls) Department dated 5-9-2002 as arbitrary and illegal and for consequential directions. ( 2 ) THE petitioners claim to be the residents of Ghanapur village, which is originally situated in Siddipet Mandal. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that when the State Government proposed to form Toguta Revenue Mandal with Headquarter at Toguta, the Ghanapur gram Panchayat passed a unanimous resolution not to include Ghanapur village in Toguta Mandal. Though the said resolution was sent to all the concerned, ignoring the same, the Government published a notification in Madak District gazette No. 17 dated 22-4-2002 inviting objections and suggestions on the proposal to form Toguta Revenue Mandal so as to reach the Collector, Medak District within 10 days from the date of publication. It is alleged that the Gazette dated 22-4-2002 was communicated to the concerned Mandals only on 3-5-2002 and therefore, the petitioners sought extension of time for submitting objections and also to afford them a personal hearing. However, no action has been taken by the authorities. Thereafter the petitioners have submitted their objections on 29-8-2002 opposing the proposal for inclusion of ghanapur village in Toguta Mandal. It is also stated that the petitioners sought for the preliminary report submitted by the Revenue divisional Officer, Siddipet. It is alleged that the 1st respondent-Government without considering the objections raised by the petitioners and without furnishing the copy of the report sought by them and without affording personal hearing, issued the impugned final notification dated 5-9-2002 notifying the new Revenue Mandal with headquarters at Thoguta in Madak District by transferring certain villages from Siddipet, kondapak and Mirdoddi Mandals. So far as siddipet Mandal is concerned the only village transferred is Ghanapur village. Aggrieved by the said action of the 1st respondent in formation of Toguta Mandal by including ghanapur village, the present writ petition is filed. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government pleader for Revenue. So far as siddipet Mandal is concerned the only village transferred is Ghanapur village. Aggrieved by the said action of the 1st respondent in formation of Toguta Mandal by including ghanapur village, the present writ petition is filed. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government pleader for Revenue. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under Rule 4 (2) of the Rules framed under A. P. Districts (Formation) act, 1974 it is mandatory to allow 30 days time while calling for objections against the proposal to form a new Revenue Mandal. Thus, it is contended that the notification dated 22-4-2002, whereunder only 10 days time was granted for submitting objections, is in violation of the mandatory requirement and on that ground alone the entire proceedings are vitiated and therefore the impugned notification is liable to be set aside. The further contention is that the action of the respondents in not furnishing the preliminary report of the Revenue Divisional officer as sought by the petitioners and denying them a personal hearing is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the formation of Thoguta Mandal is not in pubic interest and particularly deleting ghanapur village from Siddipet Mandal causes inconvenience to all the villagers and they will be deprived of several facilities available at Siddipet. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the impugned notification is not only without application of mind but it is also for extraneous considerations and therefore the same cannot be sustained. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned government Pleader for Revenue contended that the formation of new Revenue Mandal is in accordance with law and the contentions raised by the petitioners are all untenable and without any basis. It is submitted that the petitioners as a matter of fact submitted their objections on 22-4-2002 and again on 29-8-2002 and the same have been taken into consideration before issuing the impugned notification. The learned Government pleader also contended that the decision of the Government to form a new Mandal in the interest of administration is not a decision concerned with any individual citizen and therefore it cannot be said to be vitiated for want of personal hearing. The learned Government pleader also contended that the decision of the Government to form a new Mandal in the interest of administration is not a decision concerned with any individual citizen and therefore it cannot be said to be vitiated for want of personal hearing. ( 6 ) IT is relevant to note that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent- government all the allegations made by the petitioner are denied and it is stated as under:". . . . . . . the Kondapak Mandal consists of (29) villages, Geographical area is 80,890 hectares with a population of 63,024. The Mirdoddi Mandal is consisting (24) villages, Geographical area is 54,488 hectares with population 52,299. In siddipet Division the Geographical area of Kondapak is highest. The villages are also not associable with Mandal headquarters. Hence in view to reduce the inconvenience to the public the Government have decided to form a new Mandal with Thoguta headquarters. The proposed villages under new Mandal area easily accessible and within the radius of 10 kms. All the proposed villages including Ghanapur comes under dommat Assembly Constituency. Though the Gram Panchayat have passed a resolution not to include the village in the newly proposed Mandal, the policy of the Government was to think over the facility of the majority public. ". . . . . "the distance between Ghanapur to siddipet is 12 Kms. Whereas the distance between Ghanapur to Thoguta is 10 Kms. only. Moreover the peripheral boundaries are close to thoguta village. At present Ghanapur village though falls under Siddipet mandal but this village comes under the Dommat Assembly Constituency. Thus inclusion of Ghanapur village in new Mandal is not by influence of extraneous consideration. . . . "the contention of the appellants are totally wrong as the proposed Mandal headquarter i. e. , Thoguta is well accommodated with Police Station, primary Health Centre, High School market Yard, Residential School and other offices list enclosed. " ( 7 ) AS can be seen from the material on record the impugned notification - g. O. Ms. No. 538 Revenue (Regn. and Mdls.) department dated 5-9-2002 has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 3 of A. P. Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 for formation of a new Mandal in Medak District namely toguta Mandal comprising 16 villages. No. 538 Revenue (Regn. and Mdls.) department dated 5-9-2002 has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 3 of A. P. Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 for formation of a new Mandal in Medak District namely toguta Mandal comprising 16 villages. There is no dispute about the fact that before issuing the impugned notification objections were invited from the public by issuing a notification in the District Gazette dated 22-4-2002. The only objection raised by the petitioners is that the respondents failed to comply with the requirement of granting 30 days time for submitting the objections. However, the fact remains that the petitioners submitted their objections on 29-8-2002. The material on record shows that even prior to that the petitioners submitted their objections on 22-4-2002 and the objections raised by the petitioners have been taken into consideration before issuing the impugned notification. Thus, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the petitioners and therefore the impugned notification cannot be said to be vitiated on the ground that 30 days time was hot granted for submitting the objections. ( 8 ) AS far as the contention of the petitioners that they were not given personal hearing, it is relevant to note that either the Act or the rules made thereunder do not contemplate any personal hearing to be given to the individuals who claimed to be aggrieved by the proposal for formation of a new Mandal. The statute contemplates only calling for objections. The law is well-settled that the right of personal hearing cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the instant case since the objections raised by the petitioners were considered before arriving at a decision to constitute a new Mandal, there is sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement and the impugned order cannot be said to be violative of principles of natural justice for want of personal hearing. The Apex court in state Punjab v. Tehal Singh while considering an identical question held that the State government while constituting Gram Sabhas in exercise of power under the provisions of punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which is legislative in character, is not required to provide opportunity of hearing. ( 9 ) THE other allegation made by the petitioners that it is not in the interest of the residents of Ghanapur village, has been specifically denied by the respondents in their counter. ( 9 ) THE other allegation made by the petitioners that it is not in the interest of the residents of Ghanapur village, has been specifically denied by the respondents in their counter. It is a well-settled principle that whether the inclusion of a particular village in the proposed Mandal is necessary or feasible is not a justiciable issue and cannot be gone into by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. Even assuming that the petitioners are deprived of certain facilities available at Siddipet the impugned notification forming a new Mandal keeping in view the interest of the public in general cannot be found fault with, on the ground of inconvenience caused to any particular individual. I am also unable to hold that the impugned notification was issued for any extraneous consideration on account of political influence. The said allegation is not well-founded. Similarly, merely because the copy of the preliminary report of the Revenue divisional Officer was not furnished to the petitioners it cannot be concluded that the impugned decision was taken without application of mind. As observed by the supreme Court in Balco Employees Union (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Government cannot be compelled to disclose reasons for all the decisions which in the very nature of things depend on various factors and also based on the subjective satisfaction. ( 10 ) YET another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned notification is bad since the ghanapur village was not excluded from the Siddipet Mandal before including the same in the new Revenue Mandal. in support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in K. Nagabhushanam v. Collector, Krishna district. ( 11 ) IN the said case the Government issued a notification under Section 3 (1) (b) of A. P. Municipalities Act proposing to include three gram Panchayats constituted under the A. P. Gram Panchayats Act which come within the definition of local area as defined in section 2 (20) of A. P. Municipalities Act in the Vijayawada Municipality. The question that fell for consideration by the Division bench was whether the inclusion is permissible without cancelling the notification constituting the three Gram panchayats. The question that fell for consideration by the Division bench was whether the inclusion is permissible without cancelling the notification constituting the three Gram panchayats. As a matter of fact, the Collector in exercise of powers under Section 3 (2) (f) of a. P. Gram Panchayats Act read with rule 12 (1) (ii) of the Rules, cancelled the notifications issued under Section 3 (1) of the act constituting the Gram Panchayats. However, the Government in exercise of its suo motu powers of revision under Sec. 232 of the Gram Panchayats Act suspended the operation of the said order of cancellation, pending passing of final orders. While the matters stood thus, the Government issued the impugned notification confirming the inclusion of the said local areas in the limits of Vijayawada Municipality and consequently the concerned Executive officer or Sarpanches were directed to hand over the complete records to the Special officer, Vijayawada Municipality. The contention raised was that the impugned notification without vacating the stay granted by the Government under Section 232 of the a. P. Gram Panchayats Act cannot be sustained. It was argued that until the notification constituting the three villages as gram Panchayats was cancelled, the government has no jurisdiction to include them in the Vijayawada Municipality. ( 12 ) THE Division Bench while referring to section 3 (2) (f) of A. P. Gram Panchayats Act, read with Rule 12 of A. P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Village) Rules, 1969 which specifically provide for cancellation of notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 held that in the presence of those specific provisions of the A. P. Gram panchayats Act providing for the power of the Commissioner to cancel a notification where that village is proposed to be merged in a neighbouring Municipality, it is futile to contend that the Government can still act in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the act. Municipalities Act in disregard of section 3 (2) of the A. P. Gram Panchayats Act read with Rule 12 of the Declaration of Village rules. ( 13 ) THERE is nothing on record to show that the provisions of either A. P. Gram panchayats Act or any other local Act are attracted to the case on hand. No other statutory provision which mandates notification of deletion of the Village before including the same in any other Mandal is brought to my notice. ( 13 ) THERE is nothing on record to show that the provisions of either A. P. Gram panchayats Act or any other local Act are attracted to the case on hand. No other statutory provision which mandates notification of deletion of the Village before including the same in any other Mandal is brought to my notice. Hence the decision relied upon by the learned counsel does not attract to the facts on hand. ( 14 ) AS can be seen from the provisions of a. P. Districts (Formation) Act, 1974, the government is empowered, in the interest of better administration and development of the area, to form a new Revenue Mandal by separation of area from any District, Revenue division or Mandal or by uniting two or more districts, Revenue Divisions or Mandals or part thereof or by uniting any area to a district, Revenue Division or Mandal or part thereof. Under sub-section (5) of Section 3 before issuing any such notification the government shall invite objections or suggestions thereon from the persons residing within the District, Revenue division, Taluq or Village who are likely to be affected. As expressed above the objections raised by the petitioners have already been considered before issuing the impugned notification. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the decision arrived at by the 1st respondent under the impugned notification after complying with procedural requirements does not warrant any interference and the same is not amenable to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. ( 15 ) THEREFORE, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.