JUDGMENT By the Court.—This writ petition assails the impugned notification dated 16.8.2016 under the provisions of the U.P. Area Development Act, 1976 relating to the restructuring of the authority of controlling irrigation projects and has also raised the issue of the status and functioning of the employees who are members of the petitioner-Association serving under the said authority. 2. The issues raised were recorded in the order dated 21.9.2016 to the following effect : “Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Srivastava learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Issue notice to the respondent No. 2 returnable at an early date. The argument advanced is that the impugned notification dated 16.8.2016 is ultra vires to the provisions of Section 3 of the U.P. Area Development Act, 1976 is founded on the fact that the provisions of the 1976 Act define a command area under Section 2(e) and the Command Area Development Authority under Section 3 thereof. The contention is that the existence of a command area is presupposed in the constitution of a Development Area under Section 3 of the Act. So long as the command area continues to exist, the development authority of a particular command area is also separately stipulated under Section 3 of the 1976 Act. The impugned notification merges two command area development authorities into one which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner can be done only by way of an amendment conferring such powers under the Act and, not by executive instructions inasmuch as the State Government is not authorized to do so under the 1976 Act. Learned counsel submits that the command area development authorities having been stipulated as a separate authority for a distinct command area, cannot be subjected to any merger as has been done in the present case more so when the very purpose of a command area has not ceased to exist. It is further submitted that the very object for which the aforesaid merger is sought to be attempted through the impugned notification is allegedly for streamlining administrative and financial matters. It is further submitted that the very object for which the aforesaid merger is sought to be attempted through the impugned notification is allegedly for streamlining administrative and financial matters. Learned counsel submits that this could be permissible only if the act is amended and not by the exercise of executive powers by the State Government so as to frustrate the very existence of the command area development authority which has been constituted under Section 3 of thereof. Thus, what has been created under the 1976 Act cannot be abolished on an executive instruction. Learned Standing Counsel prays for three weeks time to file a counter-affidavit. Any action taken with regard to merger of the two development authorities shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner may bring on record further documents relating to the foundation or basis for creating the developmental areas that may have emanated from the Central Government or the State Government Act. Learned counsel is further permitted to implead the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources and a copy of the writ petition shall be served on the learned A.S.G.I. within three days who may also file his response in this regard, if he so chooses. List this case on 18.10.2016.” The respondents were thereafter called upon to file their affidavits. 3. An impleadment application has been filed on behalf of the Greater Sharda Sahayak Command Kshetra Vikas Pradhikari contending that the said applicant is a proper and necessary party keeping in view the nature of the challenge raised to the notification dated 16.8.2016. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the said Authority Sri Anurag Tripathi and Sri I. P. Singh for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the learned Counsel for the Union of India. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the State has also filed a counter-affidavit through the concerned official of the Irrigation Department to which a rejoinder has been filed and Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R. K. Tripathi for the petitioner have urged that they do not propose to file any further affidavits and the matter can be disposed off finally on the strength of the documents that are on record. This fact has been recorded in our order dated 10.4.2017. 6. This fact has been recorded in our order dated 10.4.2017. 6. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel while advancing his submissions has urged that a ‘Command Area’ has been defined in Section 2 (e) read with Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Area Development Act, 1976. He has also invited the attention of the Court to the definition of the word ‘’project’ occurring in Section 2 (n). He submits that once the Command Area is defined then a Development Authority, exclusively for such Command Area, is constituted under the provisions of the Act as contained in Section 3 of the 1976 Act. He contends that such Development Authority therefore comes into existence as an independent unit with it’s employees, and so long as the Command Area as defined continues to exist and the project is not abandoned or completed, then the Development Authority of such a Command Area and the Command Area itself cannot be merged together for creating a unified Command Area. Such powers are not conferred under the Act on the State Government. He has therefore questioned the correctness of the notification dated 16.8.2016 urging that in the absence of any such power existing under the 1976 Act, the aforesaid exercise of merging the Ram Ganga Command Area with a unitary command area for the entire State and also abolishing the Development Authority of Ram Ganga Command Area is unlawful and is impermissible as per the existing provisions of the 1976 Act. He submits that there is no residuary power available for being invoked by the State Government as recited in the impugned notification to carryout the aforesaid unlawful exercise. 7. On facts, he has submitted that it is evident that the work of the existing Ram Ganga Command Area had not exhausted and not only this, additional work had been assigned to the existing Command Area which fact was sufficient to establish that the continuance of the Command Area and it’s Development Authority was perfectly justified. The State Government for no valid reason, or any plausible reason available under the 1976 Act, could have resorted to this merger thereby displacing the employees of the petitioner-Association who are working at the existing Command Area at Kanpur. He has therefore urged that this exercise undertaken being without authority in law, the notification dated 16.8.2016 deserves to be quashed. 8. He has therefore urged that this exercise undertaken being without authority in law, the notification dated 16.8.2016 deserves to be quashed. 8. The learned Standing Counsel inviting the attention of the Court to the very same provisions has urged that the Command Area is subject to a project being continued or it’s work being available. According to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the work of the existing Command Area had already been concluded way back in the year 2002-03, but no notification had been issued as a result whereof the said Command Area had been called upon to do some additional work which was not part of the original project of the Command Area for which it had been set up. A mere implementation of a different project through the existing Development Authority would not amount to any such right being available to the petitioner-Association to press their cause. 9. Sri I.P. Singh, learned counsel for the Irrigation Department has also made the same submissions and so has the learned Counsel for the newly created authority Sri Tripathi. 10. We have considered the submissions raised and the provisions of Sections 2 (e), 2 (n) and 3 of the 1976 Act are extracted hereunder : 2 (e) “command area” in relation to an irrigation project, means an area which for purposes of irrigation can be commanded through the irrigation project and the limits of which are notified by the state Government; 2 (n) “project” means a project of or scheme of land development: 3. Establishment of command area development authority — (1) The State Government may by notification establish an Area Development Authority for such area as may be notified: Provided that for every command area of an irrigation project, there shall be a separate Area Development Authority: Provided further that the State Government may by notification extend the jurisdiction of an Authority referred to in the preceding proviso to any area, specified in the notification, lying outside the command area for purpose of such of the provisions of this Act as may be notified. (2) The Area Development Authority shall be a body corporate, and be deemed for all purposes to be a local authority. (3) The Authority shall have its head office at the place to be specified in the notification of its establishment. 11. (2) The Area Development Authority shall be a body corporate, and be deemed for all purposes to be a local authority. (3) The Authority shall have its head office at the place to be specified in the notification of its establishment. 11. The power to legislate under the Constitution on the subject of Irrigation and Agriculture is exclusively within List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. Reference may be had to Entry 14 and Entry 17 thereof. The framing of the 1976 Act is therefore referable to the aforesaid entires. 12. The impugned notification dated 16.8.2016 proceeds to introduce two measures. The first of expanding the jurisdiction of Sharda Sahayak Command Area Development Authority by including the entire area of Ram Ganga Command Area Development Authority within it’s fold. This merger has then been christened with a new nomenclature of Greater Sharda Sahayak Command Area Development Authority declaring it to be one unified Command Area for the entire State of U.P. 13. The arguments of Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are that such powers are not available under the 1976 Act, inasmuch as the State Government can create a separate Area Development Authority, but it cannot bring about a merger so as to abolish a command area already having projects that are pending completion. The individual separate existence of a Development Authority is for every Command Area of an Irrigation Project. He submits that the Irrigation Project of Ram Ganga Command Area is existing and therefore by this circumvented method, without the projects having come to an end within the Ram Ganga Command Area, a merger of the Development Authority was not permissible. It is urged that since for every Command Area there has to be a separate Development Authority, the same cannot be merged together with another Development Authority. This can be done only through an amendment in the Act and not otherwise. Not only this, the creation of a unified Development Authority is also not contemplated under the provisions of the Act and hence issuance of the impugned Notification dated 16.8.2016 is a colourable exercise of power contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore deserves to be quashed. 14. We may refer to the definitions extracted here-in-above. According to Section 2 (e), a Command Area and it’s limits have to be notified by the State Government. 15. 14. We may refer to the definitions extracted here-in-above. According to Section 2 (e), a Command Area and it’s limits have to be notified by the State Government. 15. Sri Gajendra Pratap has urged that the command area already stood included in the 5th Plan of the Central Government which is evident from Annexure 3 to the writ petition and also from Annexure 1 to the supplementary-affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner-Association dated 26.9.2016. He submits that the creation of a command area was contemplated under the Scheme of the 5th Plan of the Central Government as indicated in the D.O. letter dated 16.8.1973 of the then Union Agriculture Minister addressed to the Chief Ministers of various States. The same contemplates establishment of each Command Development Authority by an executive order. The same also spells out the guidelines about the limits of the size of an Irrigation Command Area and also for having more than one Development Authority for more than one Irrigation Command. The Schedule attached to the said D.O. letter in respect of the State of U.P. mentions the names of the projects, the Gandak, the Ram Ganga and Sarada Sahayak Project. The argument of Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel is that these documents establish that the Command Areas were already defined, and so long as their work did not come to an end any reduction or merger of the area was not in accordance with the provisions of the 1976 Act. 16. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, what we find is that the said document itself demonstrates that the Command Area Development Authority for each command has to be established by the State Government. This is provided under the first proviso to Section 3 (1) extracted here-in-above. The guidelines issued under a D.O. letter of the Union Agriculture Minister therefore would not amount to creating a Command Area or establishing a Development Authority. This is within the exclusive domain of the State Government in order to implement Irrigation Projects that may have the sanction of the Central Government. The Statute therefore clearly prescribes that the State Government has the power to define the limits of a Command Area duly notified by it. The D.O. letter of the Central Government therefore will not amount to any such notification. The Statute therefore clearly prescribes that the State Government has the power to define the limits of a Command Area duly notified by it. The D.O. letter of the Central Government therefore will not amount to any such notification. The identification of the Command Area is coupled with the need for establishment of a Command Area Development Authority under Section 3 of the Act. Consequently, the said Authority came to be constituted vide notification dated 18.12.1976 issued by the State Government, a copy whereof is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The three Principal Irrigation Projects for which the Development Authorities were created were Gandak Command Area Development Authority, Gorakhpur; Ram Ganga Command Area Development Authority, Kanpur; and Sharda Sahayak Command Area Development Authority, Lucknow. The limits of the jurisdiction of the authorities were also indicated therein. Thus, the said areas that were mentioned were the command areas for which the Development Authorities were separately created with headquarters at Gorakhpur, at Kanpur and at Lucknow in exercise of the powers by the State Government as indicated above. 17. As is evident from the other documents filed on record of the writ petition, the limits of the development authority particularly of the Ram Ganga Command Area was increased from time to time by including certain more areas and also the area which fell outside the command area of the Ram Ganga Command Project. 18. It is no doubt true that every command area of an Irrigation Project has to have a separate Development Authority, but at the same time, the State Government has the power to notify the Development Authority for such command area and the same by notification can expand the jurisdiction of the authority. 19. By the impugned notification dated 16.8.2016, the jurisdiction of the Development Authority of Sharda Sahayak Command Area has been enlarged by including within it’s fold the command area of the Ram Ganga Project. The State Government has the power to re-define the area of a particular Development Authority and accordingly the Development Authority will become the separate Area Development Authority of such re-defined area. The powers under Section 3 therefore also include the power to do so. 20. The State Government has the power to re-define the area of a particular Development Authority and accordingly the Development Authority will become the separate Area Development Authority of such re-defined area. The powers under Section 3 therefore also include the power to do so. 20. Apart from this, the merger of two areas within one jurisdiction and the creation of an authority by a different name is also permissible as extension of the jurisdiction of an authority is clearly permissible even if it lies outside the command area of a particular authority. The restructuring is clearly permissible as per the provisions quoted above. The argument that this exercise was beyond the legal capability of the State Government cannot be accepted. 21. Thirdly, a unified command area and the creation of a unitary command area development authority for the entire State is not prohibited. The State Government continues to have the power to notify the limits of an Irrigation Project. 22. In the instant case, the stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that the work of the project of the original Ram Ganga Command Area had already been concluded in the year 2002-03. Apart from this, 9 separate Irrigation Projects were being conducted through the Ram Ganga Command Area which were not the original projects of the Ram Ganga Command Area. Thus, if the same has now been unified under one Development Authority, the same does not amount to a violation of any of the provisions of the 1976 Act. The power to do so is possessed by the State Government as per the definitions referred to here-in-above and the interpretation thereof discussed by us. 23. What appears is that the employees who were working at the headquarters at Kanpur in the Ram Ganga Command Area Project are now sought to be displaced to Lucknow whereafter the merged headquarter would be situate. This, in our opinion is a natural consequence of the impugned notification for which there is ample justification indicated therein for a coordinated administrative control of the functioning of the existing projects. It cannot be said that any such exercise is contrary to the letter and intent of the 1976 Act which in our opinion as indicated above the State Government is authorized to undertake for the benefit of the running of the projects. 24. It cannot be said that any such exercise is contrary to the letter and intent of the 1976 Act which in our opinion as indicated above the State Government is authorized to undertake for the benefit of the running of the projects. 24. The petitioners contend that there should be a decentralized functioning and it is for this reason that Section 3 clearly envisages that there shall be a separate Area Development Authority for every command area of an Irrigation Project. By reversing this process, the State Government has acted against the principles of decentralized functioning as contained in Section 3 of the Act. 25. In our opinion, Section 3 envisages the existence of a separate Area Development Authority for every command area but the same does not prohibit for creating a single command area in the event administrative exigencies have so arisen. The counter-affidavit explains that with the number of projects shrinking and having been completed, it was found necessary in administrative exigency to unify and merge the areas into one single unit that was also necessary keeping in view the financial implications involved. 26. We have not been able to gather anything erroneous about such an intention of the State Government for creating a unified command area in the entire State with a new nomenclature. There can be a single Command Area Development Authority if there is a command area re-defined keeping in view the exigencies of the situation. 27. Consequently, for all the aforesaid reasons above, the challenge raised by the petitioner-Association cannot be sustained. 28. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.