Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. The petitioner appearing in person has filed the present writ petition in public interest seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to constitute the Revenue village of Keelvisharam also known as Rasathupuram as a separate village panchayat in terms of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994. .2. According to the petitioner, the Melvisharam Town Panchayat (presently upgraded as Third Grade Municipality) consists of 17 wards in Melvisharam and 4 wards in the Keelvisharam. Since the Keelvisharam comprises of minority group of people having a particular religious segment, they have been ignored in the grant of facilities by the Municipalities and the persons, who are controlling the Municipalities, are powerful both industrially and financially. Such a domination by one group has resulted in the underdevelopment of the wards in the Keelvisharam and there are no proper roads and drainage facility and supply of water has also not been provided properly. The petitioner made a forcible plea that due to the neglect and disinterest shown to the people of Keelvisharam known as Rasathupuram for the past 30 years, the said segment has been made as a separate panchayat. 3. We have heard the petitioner appearing in person and Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and have perused the records. 4. Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader, pointed out that earlier a writ petition being W.P.No.19548 of 2001 was filed by a person claiming to be the villager of that area in public interest for the very same relief and the same was dismissed on 30.6.2005 by this Court. But he fairly conceded that the said writ petition was dismissed for default. However, the learned Government Pleader has filed a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Collector wherein it is stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the second respondent Collector inspected the Municipality and also made a detailed report giving details of the two segments in the Municipality and said there was no grievance or any demand from the people alleging any discrimination or dissatisfaction. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that in 1951, Melvisharam was a First Grade Panchayat and thereafter, it became a Selection Grade Town Panchayat and on 010. 2004, it was upgraded as Third Grade Municipality and there has been harmonious co-existence. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that in 1951, Melvisharam was a First Grade Panchayat and thereafter, it became a Selection Grade Town Panchayat and on 010. 2004, it was upgraded as Third Grade Municipality and there has been harmonious co-existence. He also submitted that the Keelvisharam segment was already taken care of by the Municipality and there are three over head tanks supplying four lakhs litres of water to the people there on alternative days and out of 28 streets, 23 streets have been made by cement and bitumen and the area is fully provided with proper electric lightings and facilities and garbage is collected on door to door basis daily without any discrimination. The contention that the statutory notices were issued in Urdu language was also totally denied and all the notices have been issued only in the language of the State, viz., Tamil, and out of the total funds allotted, sufficient funds have been provided for taking care of the basic amenities in that segment. However, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit and also filed an additional reply affidavit reiterating the same contentions. .5. During the course of argument, Dr.Subramanian Swamy, petitioner appearing in person, pointed out that as early as 010. 2003, the Director of Town Panchayat informed the Nattamaikarars (village representatives) that their request to consider the Keelvisharam as a separate Panchayat has been under examination by the Government and thereafter, they were never informed of the same. Thereafter, several petitions have been sent to the Government and they are entitled to move in one way or the other for the action taken on the petition, which was being considered by the Government as informed by the Director of Town Panchayat. He also stated in the reply affidavit that earlier, the writ petition was dismissed for default and that under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act especially Section 3, the issue relating to bifurcation can be decided only by the Governor of the State and the District Collector has no role to play. In the further additional reply affidavit, it was pointed out that the Collector cannot pass any orders on the representation made by the villagers and the competent authority is the Governor of the State. 6. In the further additional reply affidavit, it was pointed out that the Collector cannot pass any orders on the representation made by the villagers and the competent authority is the Governor of the State. 6. As can be seen from Section 3(b)(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, it is the Governor of the State, who can cancel or modify a notification issued forming a Town Panchayat, now renamed as Third Grade Municipality and, therefore, the petition presented by the village public dated 6. 2006 can only be considered by the Governor of Tamil Nadu. Even though the prayer of the petitioner was for a positive direction to separate Keelvisharam Revenue Village as a separate Panchayat, this Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot grant any such direction especially when the power to take a decision vests with the constitutional functionary and the said functionary has not exercised his authority under the Act in one way or the other. Even if such a functionary exercises the power under enactment in one way or the other, this Court can only judicially review the same in a limited way about the validity or otherwise of such a decision. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. .7. However, since it is admitted by the State that the earlier representation is pending consideration by the Government and that the villagers themselves have sent a petition to the Governor of Tamil Nadu and it is also in law that the petition can be considered only by the Governor in the light of Section 3(b) of the District Municipalities Act, we hereby direct the first respondent to forward all the papers relating to the issue, to the Governor of Tamil Nadu for his consideration. As the issue is pending for several years, it is needless to say that the said petition shall be considered by the Governor of Tamil Nadu as expeditiously as possible and the resultant decision will be communicated to the petitioner also. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the petition dated 6. 2006 sent by the villagers as well as the argument advanced by the petitioner on their behalf. 8. The writ petition shall stand disposed of with the above observations. However, there will be no order as to costs. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the petition dated 6. 2006 sent by the villagers as well as the argument advanced by the petitioner on their behalf. 8. The writ petition shall stand disposed of with the above observations. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition will also stand closed.