ORDER N.K. Patil, J. In these petitions, petitioners are assailing the correctness of the modified impugned Government order dated 30th March 2007 issued by the Under Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, vide Annexures-D and J respectively. Further, petitioners have prayed to pass such other orders in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity. 2. These petitioners are redressing their grievances stating that, the names of their villages have been selected to provide basic infrastructure at the gross root level under the scheme called “Suvarna Gramodaya Grameen Abhivruddi Yojane”. The main aim of the said scheme, includes selection of 1000 villages through the State per year and to develop the said villages by providing basic infrastructures. The villages represented by the petitioners were selected directly in pursuance of the Terms and conditions of the said scheme and as per Government order dated 1.12.2006 and the names the said four villages are found at Sl.No. 3, of the said order which pertains to Virajpet Taluk, i.e., Kutta, Halligattu, Nokkya and Hebale. After selecting the villages as per Government order vide Annexure-B and C respectively, the Zilla Panchayat, Kodagu, as per its proceedings dated 3.3.2007 has fixed and allotted funds at the rate of Rs.15,00,000/- for these villages for providing basic amenities, for the financial year 2006-07 under “Suvarna Gramodaya Grameen Abhivruddi Yojane”. Be that as it may. Without any justification and without notifying the petitioners i.e., the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat or the elected members of the said Gram Panchayats who are representing the said villages and on the basis of the communication submitted by the jurisdictionla sitting Member of Legislative Assembly vide Annexure-H, the Director and the Ex-Officio, Under Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Bangalore, has issued the impugned modified order dated 30th March 2007 vide Annexures-D and J respectively, deleting the names of the villages of these petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned Annexures-D and J, as referred above and seeking appropriate relief as stated supra, petitioners felt necessitated to present these writ petitions. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Annexures-D and J, as referred above and seeking appropriate relief as stated supra, petitioners felt necessitated to present these writ petitions. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 4. After critical evaluation of the relevant material available on record, it is not in dispute that, as per the guidelines issued for providing basic amenities at the gross root level under “Suvarna Gramodaya Grameen Abhivruddi Yojane”, the names of the villages of these petitioners have been selected and budgetary allocation has also been allotted by the Zilla Panchayat, Kodagu District, for the financial year 2006-07. Thereafter, without issuing any notice to the elected representatives of the concerned villages i.e., Adyaksha or Upadhyaksha or Secretary of the respective Grama panchayats, and on the basis of the alleged recommendation forwarded by the jurisdictional sitting Member of Legislative Assembly, the concerned authority has deleted the names of these villages and included the names of other villages. Instead of four villages, the concerned authority has included ten villages contrary to the guidelines issued by the competent authority for implementation of the said scheme. The manner in which the said proceedings have been initiated and modified order has been issued by the concerned authority is contrary to the preamble of the said scheme, the purpose for which it has been introduced i.e., to provide basic amenities at the gross root level and they themselves have selected the villages of these petitioners, and thereafter, they have deleted the said names and included the names of other villages. The said deletion made by concerned authority cannot be sustained nor it is permissible for the concerned authority to take unilateral decision and to issue modified order, that too, without affording opportunity to the parties, who could be benefited under the earlier order passed by the same autority. It is nothing but, the total violation of principles of natural justice. The said deletion made by concerned authority cannot be sustained nor it is permissible for the concerned authority to take unilateral decision and to issue modified order, that too, without affording opportunity to the parties, who could be benefited under the earlier order passed by the same autority. It is nothing but, the total violation of principles of natural justice. However, in the interest of justice and taking into consideration the aim and object for introducing the said scheme is to provide basic amenities at the gross root level and earlier, the names of the villages of these petitioners have been selected and budgetary allocation has been allotted and work is yet to be taken-up and at that stage, some modification has taken place and therefore, interfering and setting aside the order will not meet the ends of justice and safeguard the interest of the petitioners and the newly selected villages in pursuance of the modified order. Therefore, taking into consideration that, the aim and object of the scheme is to provide basic amenities to the said villages in par with other villages and also to the petitioners’ villages, interference by this Court is not justifiable. Hence, it would suffice for this Court to issue appropriate directions to the competent authority to proceed further and to implement the government order dated 1.12.2006 and modified order dated 30th March, 2007 issued by the Under Secretary to Government, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Bangalore, after allocating necessary funds, for providing basic amenities at the gross roor level. Ordered accordingly. The above direction issued by this Court will not be precedent to other cases. With these observations, the writ petitions filed by petitioners stand disposed of.