ORDER 1. These writ petitions have been heard on different dates, however, since all the writ petitions involve common issue and common question of law, therefore, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 2. In this batch of writ petitions the petitioners have called in question the constitution/reconstitution of their respective Gram Panchayat; change of headquarters of Gram Panchayat; amalgamation or alteration of respective Panchayat area on the ground that such action/steps have been taken in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development; notification has not been issued in the manner required under Section 125 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') and that Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Alteration of Limits, Disestablishment or Change of Headquarters) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules, 1994') have been violated. 3. The constitution, amalgamation, alteration and change of headquarters of a Panchayat area was earlier notified in the year 2004. On account of increase in population pursuant to publication of census figures based on 2011 census, the Panchayat Department decided to undertake fresh delimitation exercise of Panchayat areas. 4. A communication in this regard was issued to all the Collectors on 22-5-2014 mentioning that while sending proposals for issuance of notification to constitute a village under Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, the Collectors shall take into consideration the population of the village which should be at least 1000; the infrastructure available in the village; the distance of the dependent villages from the headquarter of the Gram Panchayat and the convenience of the villagers to approach the headquarter; the Patwari Halka Numbers should be same as far as possible keeping minimum distance from the headquarter, etc. On the basis of this communication, the impugned exercise has been undertaken and the notifications have been issued by the concerned Collector. 5. The contention of the petitioners is that the notification inviting objections/suggestions having not been published in the official gazette, the entire exercise is in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 125 of the Adhiniyam and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. 5. The contention of the petitioners is that the notification inviting objections/suggestions having not been published in the official gazette, the entire exercise is in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 125 of the Adhiniyam and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. In some cases, challenge to the change of headquarter has been raised on the ground of convenience/inconvenience; constitution of new Panchayat has been assailed on the ground that the same is having population of less than 1000; fixing of headquarter has been assailed on the ground that the dependent village has more population than the village where headquarter is established, which is not permissible. The petitioners have also argued that the objections have not been considered, therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. 6. In the return filed by the respondents the grounds of challenge has been resisted on the submission that the notifications have been affixed in the notice board of the Gram Panchayats and the same was also made known to the villagers by beating of drums, therefore, the villagers having been noticed about the proposed changes; there is substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 125 of the Adhiniyam and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. With respect to other grounds it has been contented that the change of headquarter or constitution of particular Panchayat is a legislative function which cannot be called in question under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 8. The first question fallen for consideration is as to whether the requirement relating to publication of the proposals for change of headquarters/amalgamation/alteration of Panchayat areas under the proviso to section 125 (1) of the Adhiniyam and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 are mandatory or directory and whether the substantial compliance of the provision by affixture on the notice boards of the Gram Panchayat and by beating of drums in the concerned village would amount to compliance of Section 125 (1) of the Adhiniyam and substantial compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. Whether provisions of Section 125 (1) of the Adhiniyam and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994, mandatory or directory : 9. Whether provisions of Section 125 (1) of the Adhiniyam and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994, mandatory or directory : 9. Section 125 of the Adhiniyam relates to changes of headquarters of Gram Panchayat division, amalgamation and alteration of Panchayat area. Section 125 of the Adhiniyam is extracted below: “125 Changes of headquarters of Gram Panchayat division, amalgamation and alteration of Panchayat area.-(1) The Governor or the authority authorised by him may by order change the headquarters of a Gram Panchayat or alter, the limits of a Gram Panchayat area by including within it any local area in the vicinity thereof or by excluding therefrom any local area comprised therein or amalgamate two or more Gram Panchayat areas and form one Gram Panchayat area in their place or split up a Gram Panchayat area and form two or more Gram Panchayat areas in its place. Provided that no order under this section shall be made unless a proposal in this behalf is published for inviting suggestions and objections in such manner as may be prescribed and objections are considered.” (2) On the issuance of the order under sub-section (1) the Governor or the prescribed authority shall pass such consequential orders as may be necessary. 10. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 which prescribes the mode of publication of the proposals, is extracted below: “3. Change of headquarters of Gram panchayat, division, amalgamation or alteration of Gram Panchayat area.-(1) Where the Governor or the authority authorized by him decides under sub-section (1) of section 125: (i) to change the headquarters of Gram Panchayat; or (ii) to alter the limits of a Gram Panchayat area by including within it any local area in the vicinity thereof or by excluding therefrom any local area comprised therein; or (iii) to amalgamate two or more Gram Panchayat area and form one Gram Panchayat area in their place; or (iv) to split up a Gram Panchayat area and form two or more Gram Panchayat at areas in its place, he/it shall declare his/its intention in the form of a proposal to do so by publishing a notification in the “Chhattisgarh Gazette” and by affixing a copy of such notification on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat's concerned and on one or two conspicuous places in the area affected by such intention. (2) Every such notification shall specify- (i) in case of clause (i) of sub-rule (1), the existing headquarters of a Gram Panchayat and proposed headquarters; (ii) in case of clause (ii) of sub-rule (1), the Khasra numbers of the area proposed to be included in a Gram Panchayat or proposed to be excluded therefrom; (iii) in case of clause (iii) of sub-rule (1), the Gram Panchayats proposed to be amalgamated; and (iv) in case of clause (iv) of sub-rule (1), the particulars of each of the area proposed to be split up. (3) Every such notification shall invite suggestion and objections by the date to be mentioned therein and any objection or suggestion received from any person with respect to the proposal before the expiry of the date specified above shall be considered by the Governor or the authority authorized by him, as the case may be.” 11. By notification dated 23-2-1999, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh has authorised the Collectors of the concerned revenue districts, to function as the Authority for purposes of section 125 of the Adhiniyam. 12. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Adhiniyam provides that no order under Section 125 (1) 'shall' be made unless a proposal in that behalf is published inviting objections/suggestions in such manner as may be prescribed and the objections/suggestions are considered. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 provides that where the Governor or authority authorised by him decides to take any action under Section 125 (1), he 'shall' declare his intention in the form of a proposal to do so, by publishing a notification in the Gazette and by affixing a copy of such notification on the notice boards of the Gram Panchayats concerned and on one or two places in the area affected by such intention. The point for consideration is whether the use of the word 'shall' in the proviso to Section 125 (1) of the Adhiniyam and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 is mandatory or directory. 13. The point for consideration is whether the use of the word 'shall' in the proviso to Section 125 (1) of the Adhiniyam and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 is mandatory or directory. 13. The question whether a particular provision of a statute is mandatory or directory depends on the object of the statute in making the provision, the nature and wording of the provision, the intention of the legislature, and the inconvenience or injustice that will be caused to the section of public affected by the provision, by reading the provision, one way or the other (that is as 'mandatory' or 'directory'). The mere use of word “shall” is not conclusive to hold that the provisions is mandatory. Where the requirement relating to publication is mandatory but the provision relating to mode of publication is made by a delegated or subordinate legislation, prescribing more than one mode of publication, it is possible to construe such provision relating to mode of publication as directory, in which event substantial compliance with such provision relating to mode of publication, will be sufficient to meet the mandatory requirement of publication. For example, if the provision relating to mode of publication prescribes two modes of publication, and publication is made by the more effective of the two modes prescribed, any defect in the making the publication by the other mode, will not render the 'publication' bad. Resultantly the mandatory requirement of publication can be taken to be complied with. 14. In Ashok Lanka and Another v. Rishi Dixit and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 598, the Supreme Court held thus : “53. The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory would depend upon the statutory scheme. It is now well known that use of the expression “shall” or “may” by itself is not decisive. The court while construing a statute must consider all relevant factors including the purpose and object the statute seeks to achieve. (See P.T. Rajan v. T.P.M. Sahir and U.P. SEB v. Shiv Mohan Singh.)” (Also see: State Bank of Patiala and Others v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 ). 15. The court while construing a statute must consider all relevant factors including the purpose and object the statute seeks to achieve. (See P.T. Rajan v. T.P.M. Sahir and U.P. SEB v. Shiv Mohan Singh.)” (Also see: State Bank of Patiala and Others v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 ). 15. The provisions contained in Section 125 (1) of the Adhiniyam and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 requires publication of proposals so as to enable the people, residing in the area, who are likely to be effected, to submit suggestion/objections, if they are aggrieved by the proposals, so that the authority concerned may take proper decision before finalizing the matter. 16. The State Government having issued the communication to all the Collectors directing them to take into consideration the matters like population, convenience of the villagers etc., the residents of the concerned area are definitely concerned with the proposed changes, therefore, publication of proposal bringing into notice the proposed changes should be made aware to the villagers. Thus, publication of proposal as required under the proviso to Section 125 (1) of the Adhiniyam is mandatory. However, Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 requires publication in the Gazette as also by affixture of such notification on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat and one or two conspicuous places in the area affected by the proposal. Thus, on the one hand Section 125 (1) speaks only about publication and does not mandate publication only in official gazette, Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 permits three different modes of publication which shows that while prescribing the modes of publication the legislature was conscious of the fact that notifying the affected villagers by affixture in the notice board of the Gram Panchayat may also be effective than by publishing it in the official gazette only. 17. Considering all the relevant factors including the statutory scheme and the purpose and object of the statute and for the reason that the exercise to notify a village as Gram Panhayat, its alteration or amalgamation being legislative function wherein rights of any individual is not effected, this Court is of the considered opinion that the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 is directory in nature. Whether provisions regarding publication substantially complied : 18. Whether provisions regarding publication substantially complied : 18. If the substantive provision in the Act does not mandate the publication of official gazette as the only mode of publication and more than one mode of publication has been provided under the Rules and one of the mode of publication i.e. by affixture in the notice board of the concerned Gram Panchayat has been followed by the respondents, the same would amount to substantial compliance with the requirement relating to publication of proposal. 19. In State Bank of Patiala (supra) the Supreme Court held thus : 33 (4)(a) In the case of a procedural provision which is not of a mandatory character, the complaint of violation has to be examined from the standpoint of substantial compliance. Be that as it may, the order passed in violation of such a provision can be set aside only where such violation has occasioned prejudice to the delinquent employee. 20. The Supreme Court in Rai Vimal Krishna and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 401 , held thus : 27. Nobody disputes that publication and the giving of notice to persons likely to be affected by the assessment list is a must. The appellants have admitted publication of the assessment lists in three newspapers. It is not their case that such publication did not serve the purpose of notifying those who might be affected by the assessment lists, of their existence....... xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx .........Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the portion of Section 149(1) which deals with the manner of publication, as opposed to the requirement for publication per se, is directory. Since there has been sufficient compliance in effecting the intention of the legislature to give notice to the public at large in the city of Patna, we cannot hold that the assessment lists prepared on the basis of the 1993 Rules are required to be set aside. 32. With the greatest respect, we would adopt the reasoning of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court in rejecting the appellants’ submission that the mode of publication prescribed in Section 149(1) as opposed to publication itself, was mandatory and hold that the publication in the newspapers was in substantial compliance with the requirements of the sub-section. 21. 32. With the greatest respect, we would adopt the reasoning of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court in rejecting the appellants’ submission that the mode of publication prescribed in Section 149(1) as opposed to publication itself, was mandatory and hold that the publication in the newspapers was in substantial compliance with the requirements of the sub-section. 21. Again in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 236 , the Supreme Court held thus : “32. The doctrine of substantial compliance is a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does all that can reasonably be expected of it, but failed or faulted in some minor or in consequent aspects which cannot be described as the “essence” or the “substance” of the requirements. Like the concept of “reasonableness”, the acceptance or otherwise of a plea of “substantial compliance” depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the purpose and object to be achieved and the context of the prerequisites which are essential to achieve the object and purpose of the rule or the regulation. Such a defence cannot be pleaded if a clear statutory prerequisite which effectuates the object and the purpose of the statute has not been met. Certainly, it means that the Court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which the statute was enacted and not a mirror image type of strict compliance. Substantial compliance means “actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute” and the Court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent of the statute and accomplish the reasonable objectives for which it was passed.” 22. In Pranay Gupta v. State of M.P. and Others, 2004 (4) MPLJ 574 , the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while dealing with pari materia provisions of the MP Act and the Rules has held that the publication of the proposal by affixture at Gram Panchayat notice board and other conspicuous places, if properly done with sufficient time to file objections/suggestions, it would amount to substantial compliance in regard to the requirement of the publication. 23. 23. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Pranay Gupta (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that non-publication of the notification in the official gazette has not rendered the exercise of publication of proposal and issuance of final notification as invalid because the requirement under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 being directory and the same has been substantially complied with. Nature of power exercised by the Collector : 24. The other ground of challenge is based on convenience of the villagers because of change of Headquarter or on the basis of violation of guidelines. 25. On a perusal of the communications issued by the State Government on 22-5-2014 & 27-5-2014, it would manifest that such communication does not have any statutory backing. It only lays down the broad parameters which are required to be considered for making the proposals and for finalization thereof, therefore, violation of the guidelines does not have the effect of violation of any mandatory provision of the Adhiniyam or the Rules, 1994, resultantly, any such violation, if any, would not invalidate the final notification. 26. In Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija & Others v. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra & Others, AIR 1990 SC 261 , it has been held that the exercise of delimitation of Municipal area is legislative function, therefore, the right of hearing or principles of natural justice are not applicable. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court in The Talsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur, AIR 1980 SC 882 . This principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt. & Others, (1998) 8 SCC 227 and State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh & Others, (2002) 2 SCC 7 . 27. in Tehal Singh (supra) the following has been held :- “7. Ltd. v. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur, AIR 1980 SC 882 . This principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt. & Others, (1998) 8 SCC 227 and State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh & Others, (2002) 2 SCC 7 . 27. in Tehal Singh (supra) the following has been held :- “7. The principles of law that emerge form the aforesaid decisions are: (1) where provisions of a statute provide for the legislative activity i.e. making of a legislative instruments or promulgation of general rule of conduct or a declaration by a notification by the Government that certain place or area shall be part of a Gram Sabha and on issue of such a declaration certain other statutory provisions come into action forthwith provide for certain consequences; (2) where the power to be exercised by the Government under provisions of a statute does not concern with the interest of an individual and it relates to public in general or concerns with a general direction of a general character and not directed against an individual or to particular situation ;(3) lay down future course of actions, the same is generally held to be legislative in character. 8….........the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act which provide for declaring territorial area of a Gram Sabha and establishing a Gram Sabha for that area do not concern with the interest of an individual citizen or a particular resident of that area. Declaration contemplated under Section 3 of the Act relates to an area inhabited by the residents which is sought to be excluded or included in a gram sabha. The declaration under Section 3 of the Act by the Government is general in character and not directed to a particular resident of that area. Further, the declarations so made under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act do not operate for the past transactions but for future situations.......” 28. While dealing with challenge of similar exercise undertaken by the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2004, this Court in Ganesh Ram Koshare v. State of C.G. & Others, 2004 (2) CGLJ 327 , rejected the similar grounds of challenge by holding that the exercise of amalgamation/alteration/change of headquarter of Gram Panchayat is legislative in character, therefore, principles of natural justice are not attracted. High Court's power of review in matters, legislative in nature : 29. In Rajdhar Singh v. State of M.P. & Another, 1995 MPLJ 152 , the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held thus : “Notifications having been issued in exercise of powers which are legislative in character interference by High Court is impermissible. The decision of the Authorities in constituting a Gram Panchayat by name of M was perfectly in accordance with law. It was a decision over which the High Court would not sit as a court of appeal and would not substitute its own views.” 30. The Supreme Court in, while dealing with challenge to delimitation of Assembly Constituencies on the ground of growing imbalance in composition of constituencies, not reflecting proper representation of people of the State, relied on its earlier decision rendered in R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India and Others, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 324, and held thus : 17. This Court in Poudyal case relied on the opinion of Earl Warren, C.J. in B.A. Reynolds. At L Ed p. 536 of the Report the learned Chief Justice held as follows: “… We realise that it is a practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each one has an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters. Mathematical exactness or precision is hardly a workable constitutional requirement.” The learned Chief Justice also relied on historical factors in support of his opinion and held: (L Ed p. 537) “History indicates, however, that many States have deviated, to a greater or lesser degree, from the equal-population principle in the apportionment of seats in at least one house of their legislatures. So long as the divergences from a strict population standard are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational State policy, some deviations from the equal-population principle are constitutionally permissible with respect to the apportionment of seats in either or both of the two houses of a bicameral State Legislature.” 31. Thus, it is now settled that a constituency whether it be Parliamentary Constituency/Assembly Constituency/Municipal Ward or a Gram Panchayat cannot be constituted with mathematical precision having identical number of residents/voters. Similarly, there is no statutory prescription that when a particular Gram Pancayat consists of more than one villages, the headquarter has to be established in the village having the largest population. Similarly, there is no statutory prescription that when a particular Gram Pancayat consists of more than one villages, the headquarter has to be established in the village having the largest population. As would be discernible from the guidelines issued by the State Government, several factors are to be considered for establishment of a village i.e. Gram Panchayat and thereafter declaration of a particular village as its headquarter, therefore, the argument to the contrary has no substance and noticed to be rejected. In any case, this Court cannot sit in appeal against the impugned notification because the decision is general in character and not directed to a particular resident of that area. 32. In State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Rakesh Kumar Keshari and Another, (2011) 5 SCC 341 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the power of judicial review of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has held thus : 28. This Court in Johri Mal case has further held that the question is required to be determined in each case having regard to the nature of and extent of authority vested in the State. After holding that the power of judicial review is not intended to assume a supervisory role or don the robes of the omnipresent, this Court has, in terms, ruled that the power of judicial review is not intended either to review governance under the rule of law nor do the courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the Constitution to the other organs of the State and has further cautioned that the Court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. 29. The Court in Johri Mal case also held that the decisions and actions which do not have adjudicative disposition would not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review court....” 33. In view of the above, while holding that the concerned Collectors have made substantial compliance with respect to publication of proposal by affixing the same in the notice board of the Panchayat and for the fact that the exercise is legislative in character and the limited scope of judicial review as held by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Keshari (supra), Rajdhar Singh (supra) and Ganesh Ram Koshare (supra), there is no merit in these writ petitions. 34. 34. As a sequel, all the writ petitions, sans substratum, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.