JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioners, who are the villagers of Jharmunda, by way of this writ petition, seek to quash the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Government of Odisha, Panchayati Raj Department in Annexure-1, pursuant to order dated 17.10.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 17483 of 2016 filed by opposite party no.6-Sri Bhadra Charan Kisan of village Kadadihi challenging the decision of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary for fixation of newly created Gram Panchayat Jharmunda at Jharmunda under Tileibani Block of Deogarh district, and issue direction to the opposite parties to dispose of representations dated 31.12.2016 and 05.01.2017 by giving adequate opportunity to all the parties and declare the headquarters of newly created Gram Panchayat at Jharmunda in place of Gambharipasi. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that in exercise of power conferred under Section 3 read with sub-section (3) of Section 4 and Section 149 of Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, the State Government declared that groups of contiguous villages of Deogarh district, as specified in column (4) of the Schedule in Annexure-2 relating to the Sub-division and Block specified in column (1) and (2) respectively to be a Grama by the name specified in column (3) thereof and constitute a Grama Sasan for each of the said Grama and accordingly all previous notifications issued on the subject stand modified so far it relates to the villages specified in column (4) of the said Schedule. Initially, six villages, namely, Jharmunda, Kadodihi, Kadalimunda, Chandiposi, Dengrujore, Gambharipasi were in the Parposi Grama Panchayat in the district of Deogrh and the residents of the said villages are all schedule tribe. Due to creation of new villages as well as increase in the number of population, the State Government decided to create new Grama Panchayats in the State of Orissa by invoking the power conferred under Section 3 read with sub-section (3) of Section 4 and Section 149 of Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964. Accordingly, direction was given to the Collector-cum-District Magistrates to make enquiry in their respective districts to create new Gram Sasan (Panchayat) bifurcating from other Gram Sasan. The Collector, District Panchayat Officer and Block Development Officer (BDO) were competent to make enquiry and to submit proposal for consideration of new Gram Sasan in the village. Accordingly, direction was given to the Collector-cum-District Magistrates to make enquiry in their respective districts to create new Gram Sasan (Panchayat) bifurcating from other Gram Sasan. The Collector, District Panchayat Officer and Block Development Officer (BDO) were competent to make enquiry and to submit proposal for consideration of new Gram Sasan in the village. 2.1 On the basis of enquiry, the competent authority submitted a proposal to the State Government recommending creation of new Jharmunda Gram Panchayat with its headquarters at Jharmunda, having highest population and well connected to all constituent villages. Considering such recommendation, the Government of Odisha in Panchayati Raj Department issued a notification on 02.07.2016 declaring a new Gram Panchayat called, Jharmunda Gram Panchayat with contiguous villages namely, Jharmunda, Kadodihi, Kadalimunda, Chandiposi, Dengrujore, Gambhariposi with population of 2433 having headquarers at Jharmunda. Pursuant to such notification, new Jharmudna Gram Panchyat was inaugurated/ established with effect from the date of issuance of notification dated 02.07.2016 having headquarters at Jharmunda without any objection. 2.2 The opposite party no.6, who is a villager of Kadadihi, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 17483 of 2016 seeking direction to opposite party no.1, Commissioner-cum-Secretary Panchayati Raj Department to dispose of the representation dated 12.10.2015 forwarded by the M.L.A., vide letter dated 14.01.2016. This Court, vide order dated 17.10.2016, disposed of the writ petition directing the Commissioner-cum-Secretary-opposite party no.1 to consider the grievance of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of that order. It was also further directed that the petitioner and other concerned parties would be given opportunity of hearing in the matter and a reasoned order in consonance with the guidelines of the Government be passed. Pursuant to such order, opposite party no.1, without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to all affected parties and ignoring the enquiry report submitted by the Block Level Committee and District Level Committee, disposed of the said representation and passed the order impugned on 22.12.2016 that creation of new Jharmunda Gram Panchayat out of the existing Paraposi Gram Panchayat shall remain unchanged, but the headquarters of the newly created Jharmunda Gram Panchayat is to be fixed at Gambharipasi for better administrative convenience and in the larger public interest. Hence this application. 3. Mr. Hence this application. 3. Mr. N. Behuria, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that there is no dispute with regard to power of authority to pass an order with regard to fixation of headquarters of the Gram Panchayat, but contended that such power has not been exercised bonafidely and such discretion has been exercised on extraneous consideration and has also been passed ignoring the relevant materials. Therefore, the order impugned should be interfered with by this Court. It is further contended that the representation dated 12.10.2015 filed by opposite party no.6 with regard to fixation of headquarters was much prior to the notification dated 02.07.2016 and after such notification, the representation had become infructuous. It is further contended that regarding creation of new Gram Panchayat and its headquarters at Jharamunda, basing on the report of the Block Level Committee and District Level Committee, none of the villagers of the contiguous villages had filed any representation protesting/objecting about the fixation of headquarters of Jharmunda Grama Panchayat at Jharmunda and further the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 17483 of 2016 has not been complied with in its letter and spirit, to mean that this Court directed the opposite party no.1 to consider the representation filed opposite party no.6 by giving opportunity to the petitioner and other concerned parties, but the order in Annexure-1 clearly reveals that though the opposite party no.1 has given opportunity to opposite party no.6 but the other concerned parties have not been given any opportunity. Thereby, the order passed by opposite party no.1 is in gross violation of the direction issued by this Court and, therefore, the same has to be quashed. It is further contended that the opposite party no.1 has passed the order impugned without application of mind and more particularly, had not taken into consideration the report submitted by the Block Level Committee and District Level Committee, who have submitted their reports after going to the spot and after making field enquiry. Reliance has been placed on the village map, in which village Jharamunda situates in the center place and village Gambharipasi situates extreme end and adjacent to Sundargarh. Reliance has been placed on the village map, in which village Jharamunda situates in the center place and village Gambharipasi situates extreme end and adjacent to Sundargarh. More particularly, when the Government of Orissa, having taking into consideration all materials aspects, issued notification on 02.07.2016 for creation of new Gram Panchayat at Jharamunda with highest population, the said notification having not suffered from any illegality and having issued in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 4(3) of the Orissa Grama Panchayts Act, the same should not have been interfered with lightly because of interference of the local M.L.A. at whose instance direction has been issued for shifting of headquarters from Jharmunda to Gambharipasi. Therefore, the order impugned cannot sustain in the eye of law. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Pramod Kumar Bohidar v. State of Orissa, 73 (1992) C.L.T. 692; Harihar Swain v. State of Orissa, 96 (2003) CLT 454; and Bijay Kumar Behera v. State of Orissa, 2001 (1) OLR 168 . 4. Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate, with reference to the counter affidavit, contended that opposite party no.1 took up the hearing for fixation of headquarters of Jharmunda Grama Panchayat on 23.11.2016 at 11.00 a.m., in pursuance of order no.2 dated 17.10.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.17483 of 2016 filed by opposite party no.6, and passed a reasoned order on 22.12.2016 considering the representation of the opposite party no.6, keeping in view all the factual aspects, that creation of new Grama Panchayat Jharmunda out of existing Parposi Grama Panchayat shall remain unchanged, but the headquarters of newly created Jharmunda Gram Panchayat is fixed at Gambhariposi for better administrative convenience and in the larger public interest, thereby, no illegality or illegality has been committed by passing the order impugned so as to cause interference of this Court. 5. Mr. S.K. Smanataray, learned counsel for opposite party no.6 supported the arguments advanced by Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate and contended that pursuant to order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, opposite party no.1, the headquarters of newly created Grama Panchayat has already been established at Gambharipasi in an existing constructed house and the same was inaugurated on 01.01.2017 in presence of all without any objection. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate and contended that pursuant to order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, opposite party no.1, the headquarters of newly created Grama Panchayat has already been established at Gambharipasi in an existing constructed house and the same was inaugurated on 01.01.2017 in presence of all without any objection. Since Gambharipasi is centrally located, having administrative convenience, the office work of the said Grama Panchayat has been smoothly functioning in affording services to the villagers of all constituent villages. Therefore, the prayer made in the writ application to change the headquarters from Gambharipasi to Jharmunda once again, cannot sustain in the eye of law and prayed for dismissal of the writ application. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Krushna Chandra Swain v. State of Orissa, 2014 (Supp.-I) OLR-635. 6. This Court heard Mr. N. Behuria, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State; and Mr. S.K. Samantaray, learned counsel for opposite party no.6, and perused the record. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 7. The record reveals that pursuant to notification no. 10729 dated 01.07.2015 in the matter of reorganization and delimitation of Gramas and constitution of Grama Panchayats, District Level Committee and Block Level Committee, Tileibani had been constituted vide order no. 304/GP dated 03.07.2015 by the Collector, Deogarh with an instruction to Block Development Officer, Tileibani, being the Chairman of the team, to prepare data sheet and take up the exercise of reorganization of Grama Panchayats under his jurisdiction in the prescribed format-I, II, III, & IV and submit the proposals thereof to the Collector, Deogarh in order to publish proposals inviting objections and suggestions, if any, from the general public. In compliance thereof, the B.D.O., Tileibani submitted proposals for creation of new Grama Panchayats, namely, Gandam out of Dimirikuda Grama Panchayat, Biriam out of Kansar Grama Panchayat, Kalanda out of Suguda Grama Panchayat, Jharamunda out of Parposi Grama Panchayat, Palkudar out of Kendeijuri Grama Panchayat, Gunduriposi out of Suguda Grama Panchayat and Chhepilipali Grama Panchayat. In compliance thereof, the B.D.O., Tileibani submitted proposals for creation of new Grama Panchayats, namely, Gandam out of Dimirikuda Grama Panchayat, Biriam out of Kansar Grama Panchayat, Kalanda out of Suguda Grama Panchayat, Jharamunda out of Parposi Grama Panchayat, Palkudar out of Kendeijuri Grama Panchayat, Gunduriposi out of Suguda Grama Panchayat and Chhepilipali Grama Panchayat. The proposals so received from the B.D.O., Tileibani were brought to public notice, vide Notice dated 07.08.2015 of District Office, Deogarh, inviting objections and suggestions latest by 17.08.2015, as scheduled by the government, fixing the date of public hearing to 26.08.2015 with a copy to all concerned. Besides, it was also put to public domain in www.deogarh.nic.in. In response to the district office notice, the suggestions and proposals relating to the above proposed new Grama Panchayats were put to public hearing in the presence of P.D., DRDA, Deogarh; B.D.O., Tileibani; Tahasildar, Deogarh; GPEO, Tileibani; and DPO, Deogarh on 28.08.2015 and all the stakeholders were informed. After threadbare discussion, keeping in view the population criteria and cardinal principle of administrative convenience and better service delivery to the citizens, the District Level Committee resolved on 14.09.2015 to send the proposals of creation of Gandam Gram Panchayat out of Dimirikuda Grama Panchayat, Palkudar Grama Panchayat out of Kendeijuri GP, Kalanda Grama Panchayat out of Suguda Grama Panchayat and Jharamudna Grama Panchayat out of Parposi Grama Panchayat under Tileibani Block rejecting the rest, as those were not viable in any manner. The proposal for creation of new Grama Panchayat-Jharamunda out of existing Parposi Gram Panchayat had been transmitted to the Government in Panchayati Raj Department, Odisha vide letter no. 742/GP dated 19.10.2015 with all the supportive documents. Accordingly, the Government was pleased to notify the newly created Jharamunda Grama Panchayat out of Parposi Grama Panchayat, vide notification no. 11280 dated 02.07.2016 of Panchayati Raj Department, Odisha. 8. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to quote some of the relevant provisions of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964: “3. Constitution of Grama. -(1) The State Government may for the purposes of this Act by declaration notified in the Gazette constitute any village or group of contiguous villages as a Grama and assign to such Grama, a name which shall be of one of the villages comprised within the Grama. Constitution of Grama. -(1) The State Government may for the purposes of this Act by declaration notified in the Gazette constitute any village or group of contiguous villages as a Grama and assign to such Grama, a name which shall be of one of the villages comprised within the Grama. Explanation -Village intervened only by forest areas, hills, streams, rivers and such other natural barriers, and lands not forming part of any village may be treated as contiguous villages : [Provided that in the Scheduled Areas, a Grama shall ordinarily consist of a habitation or group of habitations, a hamlet or a group of hamlets comprising a community or communities and managing its affairs in accordance with traditions and customs.] (2) Wherever the State Government deem it fit so to do they may cancel any notification in respect of a Grama under Sub-section (1) or may alter the area comprised in a Grama by reducing or adding to the number of villages comprised within such Grama and by declaration notified in the Gazette constitute such altered area or areas as a Grama or Gramas, as the case may be, for the purposes of the said sub-section. (3) No Grama shall, so far as may be reasonably practicable, be constituted with a population of less than two thousand and more than ten thousand but in no event shall a village be divided and a part thereof included within a Grama. 4. Constitution and incorporation of Grama Sasan. - (1) For every Grama there shall be a Grama Sasan which shall be composed of all persons registered by virtue of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950) in so much of the electoral roll for any Assembly Constituency for the time being in force as relates to the Grama [and unless the Election Commission directs otherwise, the said portion] of the roll shall be deemed to be the electoral roll in respect of the Grama. (2) The Grama Sasan shall be a body corporate by the name of the Grama to which it relates, having perpetual succession and common seal, with power, subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract and may by the said name sue and be sued. (2) The Grama Sasan shall be a body corporate by the name of the Grama to which it relates, having perpetual succession and common seal, with power, subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract and may by the said name sue and be sued. (3) The office and headquarters of the Grama Sasan shall be situated within the limits of the Grama and unless otherwise ordered by the State Government in the village bearing the name of the Grama. 149. Matters ancillary to abolition or reconstitution of Gramas. – (1) (a) Whenever the State Government, decide upon a general re-organisation of the Gramas within the State they may for the said purpose by order direct all steps to be taken in accordance with this Act and the rules made thereunder in the matters of redelimitation of Gramas division thereof into wards and for the constitution of Grama Panchayats for such Gramas. (b) The redelimitation, division and constitution made in pursuance of an order under Clause (a) shall not affect the constitution of the existing Grama and Grama Panchayats but shall have effect only on the date following the date of expiry of the term, or, as the case may be, extended term of office of the existing Grama Panchayats and the new Grama Panchayats shall enter office on the date earlier mentioned. (2) The State Government may, as in their opinion the expediency of the circumstances requires, by general or special order in that behalf provide for all or any of the following matters, arising out of or in relation to the abolition or reconstitution of Gramas, namely : (a) amalgamation, allegation, utilisation or apportionment of assets and liabilities and procedure for enforcement of rights and obligations in relation thereto; (b) continuance or termination of or alterations in the conditions of service of officers and servants of such local authorities immediately before such abolition or reconstitution and the allocation of such persons to the different bodies thereafter; (c) reorganisation and constitution of the Committees, their functions, or term of office of the members thereof as were there prior to the abolition or reconstitution ; and (d) any matter necessary, ancillary or incidental to such abolition or reconstitution for which this Act makes no provision or makes insufficient provision and provision in the opinion of the State Government is necessary. (3) The provisions of Section 148 and of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any of the other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. 9. In view of such provisions of Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, since notification was issued on 02.07.2016 by the Panchayati Raj Department creating Jharamunda Grama Panchayat out of Parposi Grama Panchayat, having the headquarters at Jharamunda, the representation, which was filed by opposite party no.6 on 12.10.2015, much prior to notification dated 02.07.2016, had become infructuous. But opposite party no.6, who is the villager of Kadadihi village, which is a contagious village of newly created Jharmunda Grama Panchayat, filed W.P.(C) No. 17483 of 2016 before this Court challenging the decision of the opposite party no.1 for fixation of headquarters of newly created Jharmunda Grama Panchayat at Jharmunda in Tileibani Block in the district of Deogarh. But this Court did not interfere with such notification dated 02.07.2016 and disposed of the above writ petition on 17.10.2016 with the following direction. “Learned Commissioner-cum-Secretary, P.R. Department is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If necessary, the petitioner and other concerned parties may be given opportunity of hearing in the matter and a reasoned order in consonance with the guidelines of the Govt. “Learned Commissioner-cum-Secretary, P.R. Department is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If necessary, the petitioner and other concerned parties may be given opportunity of hearing in the matter and a reasoned order in consonance with the guidelines of the Govt. be passed by Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department.” 10. On perusal of the aforesaid order, it would be evident that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, passed order to the extent that if necessary, the petitioner and other concerned parties may be given opportunity of hearing in the matter and a reasoned order in consonance with the guidelines of the government be passed by opposite party no.1. The order impugned in Annexure-1 dated 22.12.2016 reveals that the opposite party no.6 appeared on 23.11.2016 before opposite party no.1 for personal hearing and the DPO, Deogarh was also present in the hearing and opposite party no.1 only heard them without giving opportunity to other concerned parties and without giving any notice to the villagers of contiguous villages and passed the order impugned. Thereby, the said order has been passed without compliance of principle of natural justice. 11. The soul of natural justice is ‘fair play in action’ In HK (An Infant) in re, 1967 1 All ER 226 (DC), Lord Parker, CJ, preferred to describe natural justice as ‘a duty to act fairly’. In Fairmount Investments Ltd. v. Secy of State for Environment, 1976 2 All ER 865 (HL), Lord Russel of Killowen somewhat picturesquely described natural justice as ‘a fair crack of the whip’ In R. v. Secy. Of State for Home Affairs, ex p. Hosenball, Geoffrey Lane, LJ, 1977 3 All ER 452 (DC & CA), preferred the homely phrase ‘common fairness’ in defining natural justice. Natural justice, another name of which is common sense justice, is the name of those principles which constitute the minimum requirement of justice and without adherence to which justice would be a travesty. Natural justice accordingly stands for that “fundamental quality of fairness which being adopted, justice not only be done but also appears to be done”. 12. Natural justice, another name of which is common sense justice, is the name of those principles which constitute the minimum requirement of justice and without adherence to which justice would be a travesty. Natural justice accordingly stands for that “fundamental quality of fairness which being adopted, justice not only be done but also appears to be done”. 12. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 , the meaning of natural justice came up for consideration and the apex Court held as follows:- “The phase is not capable of a static and precise definition. It cannot be imprisoned in the straight-jacket of cast-iron formula. Historically, “natural justice” has been used in a way, “which implies the existence of moral principles of self evident and unarguable truth”, “natural justice” by Paul Jackson, 2nd Ed, page-1, In course of time, judges nurtured in the traditions of British jurisprudence, often invoked it in conjunction with a reference to “equity and good conscience”. Legal experts of earlier generations did not draw any distinction between “natural justice” and “natural law”. “Natural justice” was considered as “that part of natural law which relates to the administration of justice”. 13. In Bhagwan v. Ramchand, AIR 1965 SC 1767 , the apex Court held that the rule of law demands that the power to determine questions affecting rights of citizens would impose the limitation that the power should be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 14. In Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur, AIR 1990 SC 307 , the appellant was appointed to the post of Tax Inspector. His appointment was cancelled by the authorities on the representation made by a departmental candidate who contended that a Tax Inspector’s post should have been exclusively filled by promotion. The authority as well as the High Court proceeded on the assumption that the extant Government orders provided for filling up the post of Tax Inspector exclusively by promotion and therefore the appellant’s appointment was illegal. The Supreme Court did not agree with the interpretation of the Government order made by the High Court. But, the Court proceeded to observe that since the order of appointment had conferred a vested right in the appellant to hold the post of Tax Inspector, that right could not be taken away without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. The Supreme Court did not agree with the interpretation of the Government order made by the High Court. But, the Court proceeded to observe that since the order of appointment had conferred a vested right in the appellant to hold the post of Tax Inspector, that right could not be taken away without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. The Court observed as follows: “It is an elementary principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without hearing. The order of appointment conferred a vested right in the appellant to hold the post of Tax Inspector, that right could not be taken away without affording opportunity of hearing to him. Any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is rendered void. There is no dispute that the Commissioner’s Order had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant therefore the order was illegal and void.” In view of law laid down by the apex Court, it cannot, however, be doubted that cancellation of appointment has adverse civil consequences and therefore before making the order of cancellation the employee concerned must be given an opportunity of making a representation and the elementary of principles of natural justice has to be complied with. 15. In Rajendra v. State of Maharastra, (2008) 11 SCC 90 , the apex Court held that even if the appointment is by mistake, the abrupt withdrawal of the same after the employee has worked for 17months amounts to violation of natural justice. This above view has also been taken by this Court in Purna Chanda Hota v. Sambalpur University, 2019 (I) OLR-5 and Biswanath Behera v. State Bank of India, 2019(II) OLR 771. 16. In view of the propositions of law, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the order so passed on 22.12.2016 by the opposite party no.1 was without complying the principle of natural justice and without giving any opportunity of hearing, that too the same was not in consonance with the order dated 17.10.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 17483 of 2016, meaning thereby, the other concerned parties, including the petitioner, have not been given any opportunity of hearing in the matter. 17. 17. There is no iota of doubt that power to constitute a Grama and to assign a name to such Grama is derived from Section 3 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964. But no guideline has been fixed under Section 3 for the purpose of assigning any name to a group of contagious villages. Therefore, it is the discretion of the State Government to constitute a group of contiguous villages as a Grama and to assign to such Grama a name, which shall be of one of the villages comprised within the Grama. But, there is a rider to exercise such discretionary power to the extent that such discretionary power has to be exercised on relevant considerations and cannot be permitted to be exercised on extraneous consideration. Therefore, the Court is not entitled to interfere with the discretion exercised by the State Government as long as the said discretion is exercised bona fide, but it would be fully entitled to interfere when it comes to the conclusion that the discretion has been exercised on extraneous consideration or has been exercised ignoring the relevant materials or the Court comes to the conclusion that the power has been exercised colourably. In view of the materials available on record, on the basis of the notification dated 01.07.2015 in the matter of reorganization and delimitation of Grams and constitution of Grama Panchayat, District Level Committee and Block Level Committee, Tileibani were constituted, and direction was given to the Block Level Committee to prepare data sheet and take up the exercise of reorganization of Gram Panchayats. Accordingly, the Block Level Committee submitted a report for constitution of Jharmunda Grama Panchayat out of Parposi Grama Panchayat and also fixed the headquarters at Jharmunda. In pursuance thereto, it was duly recommended by the District Level Committee and on consideration of the same, the State Government, vide notification dated 02.07.2016, in its Panchayati Raj Department created Jharmunda Grama Panchayat out of Parposi Grama Panchayat and fixed headquarters at Jharmunda taking into consideration the maximum number of population at centrally located place. In pursuance thereto, it was duly recommended by the District Level Committee and on consideration of the same, the State Government, vide notification dated 02.07.2016, in its Panchayati Raj Department created Jharmunda Grama Panchayat out of Parposi Grama Panchayat and fixed headquarters at Jharmunda taking into consideration the maximum number of population at centrally located place. Therefore, the same should not have been lightly interfered with by opposite party no.1 in the name of consideration of representation, pursuant to order dated 17.10.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 17483 of 2016, and he should not have substituted own views ignoring the reports of the Block Level committee and District Level Committee, who have made the field enquiry and submitted a report. That apart, it is apparent from the record that the representation filed by the opposite party no.6 was forwarded by local M.L.A. That clearly indicates, there was interference of local politician and, as such, it cannot be disbelieved that at the behest of such political interference, the order impugned in Annexure-1 has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Besides, after the Block Level Committee and District Level Committee recommended and suggested for creation of Jharmunda Grama Panchayat with the headquarters at Jharamunda, the objections from the public were invited and as no objection was received from any quarter, vide notification dated 02.07.2016 in Annexure-1, the Grama Panchayat was established with headquarters at Jharmunda. Consequentially, the opposite party no.1 cannot and could not have modified the headquarters of the Grama Panchayat on an extraneous consideration ignoring the relevant materials available on record. 18. Though in the order impugned the opposite party no.1 admitted that Jharamunda is the highest population village, but viewed that population is not the sole factor for which fixation of headquarters can be taken up and relying upon a map, whose authenticity has not been placed on record, come to a conclusion that the Gambharipasi village is centrally located place and, therefore, the headquarters of the Grama Panchayat should be at Gambharipasi instead of Jharmunda. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said map should not have relied upon, as its authenticity was not proved. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said map should not have relied upon, as its authenticity was not proved. Therefore, it can be safely viewed, opposite party no.1 has exercised his jurisdiction with an extraneous consideration and ignoring the relevant materials, and more so since the representation of the opposite party no.6 was recommended by the local M.L.A., the power has been exercised colourably. Needless to mention, the said representation was filed on 12.10.2015 and recommendation was made by local M.L.A. on 14.01.2016, which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ application, and on consideration of the same, the notification under Annexure-2 was issued on 02.07.2016. Therefore, this clearly indicates that the opposite party no.1, while passing the order impugned, has not applied its mind and directed for change of headquarters of the Jharmunda Grama Panchayat from Jharmunda to Gambharipasi in the name of administrative convenience and larger public interest. In view of the discussions made above and also the ratio decided in Pramod Kumar Boidhar (supra), this Court has no hesitation to quash the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by opposite party no.1 and declare the notification dated 02.07.2016 in Annexure-2 as valid and operative. 19. In Harihar Swain mentioned supra, this Court held that the fixation of headquarters of the Grama Panchayat in any particular village is essentially an administrative matter and so long as relevant considerations have weighed with the Government in fixing the headquarters in a particular village, the High Court cannot interfere with the decision of the Government like an appellate authority and quash the decision of the Government. While exercising power under judicial review, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has only to see whether the administrative power has been exercised within the limits of law and taking into account the relevant considerations and so long as the High Court is satisfied that the power has been exercised within the limits of law after taking into account the relevant considerations, the High Court will not interfere with the same on the ground that it should have been located at a different place. In exercise of power under Article 226 of the constitution of India, this Court is of the considered view that when notification dated 02.07.2016 was issued, on the relevant materials available with the Government, to fix the headquarters of Jharmunda Gram Panchayat at Jharmunda, but subsequently, without affording any opportunity of hearing in consonance with the direction of this Court dated 17.10.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 17483 of 2016, the order impugned has been passed in Annexure-1. Thereby, in exercise of power of judicial review, this Court is of the considered view that the opposite party no.1 has not acted in consonance with the provisions of law, rather, exercised the power colorably to deprive the benefits to the petitioners. Therefore, the order so passed has to be interfered with by this Court. 20. Examining from all angles, this Court is of the considered view that as the notification was issued on 02.07.2016 by creating Jharmunda Grama Panchayat from Parposi Grama Panchayat fixing headquarters at Jharmunda, taking into consideration the relevant factors and documents available on record, the same should not have been changed by opposite party no.1 by order dated 22.12.2016. Thereby, this Court held that notification dated 02.07.2016 will remain valid and that cannot be interfered with by passing the order impugned in Annexure-1 dated 22.12.2016 by the opposite party no.1. 21. The case of Krushna Chandra Swain (supra) on which reliance has been placed by opposite party no.6, has been decided on its own facts and circumstances and, as such, has no application to the present context. Thereby, the said judgment is distinguishable. 22. In view of the foregoing discussions, both on facts and law, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed on 22.12.2016, pursuant to order dated 17.10.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 17483 of 2016, for change of headquarters of Jharmunda Grama Panchayat from Jharmunda to Gambharipasi cannot sustain in the eye of law, as the same suffers from gross violation of the principle of natural justice, exercise of extraneous consideration by ignorance of relevant materials and colourable exercise of power. Accordingly, the order dated 22.12.2016 in Annexure-1 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The notification issued on 02.07.2016 in Annexure-2, so far it relates to constitution of Jharmunda Grama Panchayat with headquarters at Jharmunda, remains valid and operative. 23. The writ petition is thus allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 22.12.2016 in Annexure-1 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The notification issued on 02.07.2016 in Annexure-2, so far it relates to constitution of Jharmunda Grama Panchayat with headquarters at Jharmunda, remains valid and operative. 23. The writ petition is thus allowed. No order to costs.