ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The present bunch of writ petitions involves common question of law and as such the petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. The primary grievance raised in the writ petitions is with regard to the notice issued by the State Government in respect of delimitation/formation of new Gram Panchayats. The State Government exercising the power under Section 101 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short 'the Act of 1994) issued notices through the District Collector in various districts. The date of issuance of notice in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15520/2019 (Jaswant Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) is 29th July, 2019, issued by the District Collector, Bharatpur. ThDistrict Collector had invited the objections from the various persons with regard to the proposed Gram Panchayats to be set up after inclusion/exclusion of certain villages. 3. The petitioners have raised a common grievance in all the petitions that the notice issued under Section 101 of the Act of 1994 has been an empty formality and no hearing has been afforded to the petitioners before sending recommendation to the Competent Authorities. The petitioners have further raised a grievance that the guidelines have been issued by the State Government for formation of Gram Panchayats and as per the guidelines issued on 12th June, 2019, the Gram Panchayats have not been reconstituted. 4. The petitioners in certain cases have raised a grievance that the Headquarter of the Gram Panchayat is not situated as per the requirement set out in the guidelines issued by the State Government. Some of the petitioners have a grievance that the required number of people in a particular village, do not satisfy the formation of Gram Panchayat. 5. The petitioners have also raised a grievance that not only distance and population, criteria have been violated but the other convenience of the villagers/petitioners have not been kept in mind while undertaking the exercise of formation of Gram Panchayats, as per the notification issued by the State Government. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the issue raised in the present bunch of writ petitions is no more res integra in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12960/2014 (Bhupendra Pratap Singh Rathore Vs. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the issue raised in the present bunch of writ petitions is no more res integra in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12960/2014 (Bhupendra Pratap Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected writ petitions vide order dt. 18th December, 2014. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in other bunch of writ petitions has also dealt with the same issue, as involved in the present bunch of writ petitions and the Co-ordinate Bench has also dismissed each & every petitions with the cost of Rs. 25,000/-. Counsel refers to the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15458/2019 (Ramji Lal Gautam Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) vide order dt. 12th September, 2019. 8. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controversy decided by the Division Bench of this Court, was in respect of interpretation of Article 243-O(a) of the Constitution of India and Section 117 of the Act of 1994. 9. Counsel submitted that before the Division Bench judgment, Gazette notification had already been issued in respect of formation/delimitation of Gram Panchayats, hence the Division Bench took a view that the law, which was declared by the legislature, the same had immunity from challenged in view of Article 243 (O) and Section 117 of the Act, 1994. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the present bunch of writ petitions, the respondents have only issued notices under Section 101 of the Act of 1994 and no final Gazette notification has been issued and as such the petitioners are within their domain to challenge the action of the State Government of undertaking the exercise of formation of Panchayats. 11. Counsel further submitted that the judgment passed by the Division Bench has to be read in the facts of the case in which the Division Bench considered the impact of Gazette notification and the said judgment cannot govern the present cases. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ramji Lal Gautam Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) was based on the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15466/2019 (Gani Mohd. & Ors. Vs. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ramji Lal Gautam Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) was based on the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15466/2019 (Gani Mohd. & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) dt. 12th September, 2019, and the said judgment is subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench. 13. Counsel argued that this Court is required to consider the issue and the submissions made, in independent manner. 14. Counsel for the petitioners raised three contentions before this Court, as under:- 1. The notice under Section 101 of the Act of 1994 is an empty formality and if the notices have been issued inviting objections, the respondents-State is required to consider the objections in objective manner and only after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the persons concerned/petitioners, the State Government could have proceeded further in the matter of delimitation of the Gram Panchayats. 2. Counsel argued that in some of the cases, the objections were still not decided and they were under consideration before the Authorities and yet the respondent-State has proceeded further and the Collector concerned has been recommending the matter for formation of Gram Panchayats violating the guidelines issued by the State Government. 3. The guidelines declared by the State Government for formation of Gram Panchayats/delimitation, is required to be adhered to and no violation of the said guidelines should be permitted by the Court. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have also submitted that the judgment which is passed by the Division Bench should not be read like a statute and the reasoning of the judgment should be considered, in the context, in which the said judgment has been passed. 16. Learned counsel further submitted that the point which was not raised before the Court cannot be an Authority for said question/point and this Court has to independently consider all the aspects of the matter, which have been challenged in these writ petitions. 17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the State Government as per power given under Section 101 of the Act of 1994, at any time can undertake the exercise of alteration in the limits of Panchayati Raj Institutions. 18. 17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the State Government as per power given under Section 101 of the Act of 1994, at any time can undertake the exercise of alteration in the limits of Panchayati Raj Institutions. 18. Counsel submitted that the purpose of issuing notices to the people concerned is to invite their suggestions/objections and the State Government Authorities, after considering all the aspects of the matter, have to form their opinion. 19. Learned counsel submitted that the State Government for considering the formation/alteration of Gram Panchayats has to keep in mind several considerations. The convenience of the people/villagers is a prime thing, which is to be kept in mind, however, the administrative convenience is also to be looked into and after considering all aspects of the matter, the power lies with the State Government to form its opinion for formation of Panchayati Raj Institutions/Gram Panchayats, etc. 20. Counsel further argued that issuance of notice itself shows that the State Government or its authorities are not proceeding on administrative side at their own. On the contrary they have to keep in mind the various aspects of the matter as public at large is involved, before any decision is taken by these Authorities. 21. Learned counsel submitted that the procedure, which is given under Section 101 of the Act of 1994 is to be necessarily followed by the State Government and the Authorities, which are enjoined upon to consider the formation of Institution have to keep in mind all the parameters, which are required for proper functioning of these Institutions. 22. Counsel submitted that as far as grievance of the petitioners with respect to not considering their objections/representations is concerned, the authorities have duly taken into account the objections, which have been filed. Counsel has also produced, for perusal of this Court, some of the objections, which were considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer, where two warring groups wanted Gram Panchayat to be situated at a particular place, they were given proper hearing and after considering the objections raised by different sections of people, decisions have been taken as per necessity & convenience of the public at large. 23. Counsel submitted that as far as grievance of the petitioners with regard to afford them hearing is concerned, the Government has made it clear vide its notice dt. 23. Counsel submitted that as far as grievance of the petitioners with regard to afford them hearing is concerned, the Government has made it clear vide its notice dt. 11th July, 2019, that personal hearing in these matters to each objector is not required. Counsel further submitted that in a given case, if personal hearing is possible, the Authorities have accepted such request and it cannot be said that they have acted mechanically without giving chance to the people concerned to raise their grievance in respect of formation of Gram Panchayats. 24. Counsel further submitted that the petitioners have filed these petitions on apprehension, as the report which is being submitted by the authorities concerned, will be sent through the District Collector to the Cabinet Sub-Committee and after considering various aspects of the matter, the Government will form the final opinion and as such it cannot be said that the grievance of the people have not been taken care of. Counsel further submitted that the decisions, which have been taken by the various authorities, do not suffer from any voice of mala-fides and such decisions are not arbitrary. 25. Counsel submitted that in absence of challenge to the action of the State Government on the ground of mala-fides or unreasonableness, the scope of judicial interference in these matters is excluded. 26. Counsel further submitted that once the Division Bench and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court have decided the controversy, this Court may follow the same decision and judicial discipline further mandates that the Single Bench should not give separate judgment on the issue, which has been decided by the Division Bench. 27. I have heard the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 28. This Court finds that Section 101 of the Act of 1994 gives power to the State Government for altering limits of Gram Panchayats. The requirement is of giving one month's notice to be published in a particular manner and the same notice should specify the proposed Panchayat. This Court finds that the respondents have complied with the requirement of Section 101 of the Act of 1994 in the present cases and accordingly, their action cannot be termed as arbitrary while issuing the notices, as required under Section 101 of the Act of 1994. 29. This Court finds that the respondents have complied with the requirement of Section 101 of the Act of 1994 in the present cases and accordingly, their action cannot be termed as arbitrary while issuing the notices, as required under Section 101 of the Act of 1994. 29. This Court further finds that various authorities have been prescribed in the notice issued under Section 101 of the Act of 1994, where objections are invited from the people concerned, such as Tehsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, District Collector and before these authorities, such objections can be filed by the persons feeling aggrieved against formation of Gram Panchayat. The mechanism provided for filing objections is well defined and people have been given rights to approach the authorities by way of making their grievances and the affording of opportunity by the State Government satisfies the requirement of Section 101 of the Act of 1994. 30. This Court finds that the various guidelines have been issued by the State Government where criteria have been prescribed for change/creation of new Gram Panchayat. The broader guidelines prescribed, were required to be kept in mind while taking decision. The case of the petitioners with regard to not adhering to the request or not considering their objections, this Court finds that if different sections of people/villagers give their own suggestions with respect to formation of Gram Panchayat/delimitation, the authorities, who have to take decision, look into all the considerations, which are required and as such it cannot be said that the Administrative Authorities, have been given unfettered power to work, as per their own whims. 31. This Court further finds that the guidelines which have been issued by the State are for the purpose of taking into account the various aspects i.e. administrative convenience & convenience of the people concerned and if the guidelines are laid down by the State Government, the authorities have to take into account all the aspects of the matter before recommending the formation/delimitation of the Gram Panchayats. 32. This Court finds that the respondent-State has proceeded for formation of new Gram Panchayats/delimitation in view of the requirement, as has been envisaged in view of the various schemes of the State Government and further, as per the requirement prescribed under Section 101 of the Act of 1994. 32. This Court finds that the respondent-State has proceeded for formation of new Gram Panchayats/delimitation in view of the requirement, as has been envisaged in view of the various schemes of the State Government and further, as per the requirement prescribed under Section 101 of the Act of 1994. The grievance of the petitioners is that opportunity has not been granted to them or their objections have not been considered, this Court finds that if the Authorities have received objections/representations from the petitioners/other people, the same are duly considered and accordingly, the recommendations are made to the higher authorities. 33. As regards, grievance of the petitioners that personal hearing has not been afforded, this Court finds that the State Government has not altogether excluded the right of hearing to the people concerned and if the hearing of some individual is possible, the State Government itself has decided to undertake such exercise. 34. This Court further finds that to give a direction to afford personal hearing to all the people will not be possible, considering the nature of job, which has been assigned to the authorities. It goes without saying that in each village, there are different groups of people, who have different interest and different political considerations and the authorities have to keep in mind the guidelines, which have been issued by the State Government and as such affording of hearing to each individual, cannot be made possible, in view of the nature of job, which is assigned to the authorities. 35. This Court further finds that formation of Gram Panchayat/delimitation is an act, which is required to be done by the State Authorities, as per law. The right of an individual to remain in a particular Gram Panchayat or to be excluded/change a new Gram Panchayat cannot be claimed as a fundamental right. The Authorities have to consider the various considerations in their mind before taking such decisions. If this Court accepts the plea of the petitioners, the situation would be like formation of Gram Panchayat, as per the wishes of particular people and the same cannot be in accordance with law. 36. This Court further finds that the issue with regard to right of an individual in respect of formation of Gram Panchayat is concerned, the Division Bench has observed at page 17 of the judgment in the case of Bhupendra Pratap Singh Rathore Vs. 36. This Court further finds that the issue with regard to right of an individual in respect of formation of Gram Panchayat is concerned, the Division Bench has observed at page 17 of the judgment in the case of Bhupendra Pratap Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) that there are two things, which are mandatory; (i) notice inviting objections is required to be given before delimitation and (ii) hearing has to be afforded and in such eventuality, action of the State Government cannot be faulted. The relevant para of the Division Bench is quoted hereunder:- "A plain reading of the provisions of the Constitution Art. 243-C, 243-K & 243-O, if read together with S. 101 & S. 117 of the Act, 1994 would go to show that delimitation of Panchayat area or the formation of constituencies in the said areas and allotments of seats to the constituencies could neither be challenged nor the court can entertain such challenge except on the ground that before delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing was afforded, even though this challenge could not be entertained after the notification regarding delimitation came to be published in the official gazette. The law on the subject which has been declared by the Apex court is loud and clear and prohibits courts to entertain challenge in view of the Art. 243-C, 243-K and 243-O of the Constitution in respect of the above aspects and, therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioners pertaining to delimitation of Panchayat areas or that of formation of constituency in the said area as well as allotments of seats to such constituencies cannot be entertained by the courts since from the procedure followed and material available on record, it reveals that objections were invited from the persons and hearing was afforded to them and only thereafter the District Collectors, keeping in view the guidelines, examined the matter and made recommendations to the State Government through the Divisional Commissioners." 37. This Court finds that the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Division Bench had primarily considered the issue pertaining to issuance of notification by the State Government and the same has got the force of law and as such the Division Bench did not interfere in the bunch of writ petitions, this Court finds that the Division Bench has not only considered the impact of Gazette notification, which was finally issued by the Government but the Division Bench of this Court has also considered the grievance raised by the petitioners, where the authorities have not issued the final notification. The Division Bench after considering the scope of Section 117 of the Act of 1994 and Article 243(O) of the Constitution of India, came to the conclusion that right of an individual is not to the extent of challenging the notification which is issued by the State Government. 38. This Court does not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that judgment of the Division Bench is not applicable in the present cases. This court further finds that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ramji Lal Gautam Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) has also taken a view that formation of new Gram Panchayat is an administrative power of the State Government and individual does not have any fundamental right to claim that different Panchayat is to be formed in a particular form. 39. This Court does not find any substance in the present bunch of writ petitions and accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim orders passed by this Court also stand vacated. 40. A copy of this order be separately placed in each file.