ORDER : The petitioners seek writ of mandamus declaring the draft list of Elamanchili Mandal in West Godavari, whereby bifurcating Ward Nos.7 to 12 of Y.V.Lanka and adding to Badava MPTC territorial jurisdiction and adding Kalagampudi Village to Ward Nos.1 to 6 of Y.V. Lanka without issuing any public notice to the Y.V. Lanka Major Gram Panchayat by the 4th respondent vide Memo No.PPR01-PROPMDL(BMP)/2/2020-VIG-II, dated 03.02.2020 as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the aforesaid memo and for a consequential direction to respondents to continue the 2 MPTC seats of Y.V. Lanka without disturbing its existing constituency. 2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus: (a) The first petitioner was elected as MPTC for 2013 – 2018 of Y.V. Lanka II and presently PACS President and the second petitioner was Director of A.P.C.S. Bank and Ex-Sarpanch of Y.V. Lanka. Their case is that Y.V. Lanka is a major gram panchayat having population of 4259 in Elamanchili Mandal and it has two MPTC territorial constituencies. While so, for the forthcoming Mandal Praja Parishad and Zilla Praja Parishad Elections, Y.V. Lanka Zilla Parishad has been divided into two parts i.e., Ward Nos.1 to 6 as one part and Ward Nos. 7 to 12 as second part. Ward Nos.7 to 12 were added to territorial jurisdiction of Badava MPTC, whereas Kalagampudi Village is included to Ward Nos.1 to 6 of Y.V.Lanka MPTC. By virtue of the above delimitation, Y.V. Lanka lost one MPTC. Instead of bifurcating Y.V. Lanka into two parts, keeping the same intact, Kalagampudi and Badava should have been merged together to form into one MPTC. (b) It is the further case of the petitioners that for delimitation, bifurcation and merger of territorial jurisdictions of MPTCs, several guidelines were issued under G.O.Ms.No.877, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and Relief (Elecs-1), dated 03.12.1994 and G.O.(D) No.131, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (C1) Department, dated 16.03.2007. However, the 4th respondent has not scrupulously followed the guidelines in the above G.Os. and no Grama Sabha was conducted and resolution was not obtained. Therefore, the proceedings of the 4th respondent vide Memo No.PPR01-PROPMDL(BMP)/2/2020-VIG-II, dated 03.02.2020, is bereft of law and logic. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The 4th respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition and inter alia contending thus: (a) Originally, there were 21 MPTC territorial constituencies in Elamanchili Mandal. and no Grama Sabha was conducted and resolution was not obtained. Therefore, the proceedings of the 4th respondent vide Memo No.PPR01-PROPMDL(BMP)/2/2020-VIG-II, dated 03.02.2020, is bereft of law and logic. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The 4th respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition and inter alia contending thus: (a) Originally, there were 21 MPTC territorial constituencies in Elamanchili Mandal. Recently, 2 Grama Panchayats i.e., Kanteru and Adavipalem, having one MPTC each were merged with Palakol Municipality. There should be 3500 population for creation of one MPTC. Originally, the population of Elamanchili Mandal was 71,890. The population of Kanteru and Adavipalem Gram Panchayats is 7432. In view of their merger, the population of the Mandal is reduced to 64,458. Hence, as per the guidelines, the Elamanchili Mandal can have only 18 MPTCs and therefore, an exercise has been conducted to reduce the number of MPTCs from 19 to 18. (b) It is further submitted, earlier Y.V.Lanka was having two MPTCs. Badava MPTC was consisting of two villages i.e., Badava and Kanteru. With a view to reduce the number of MPTCs, the respondent authorities have carved out part of Y.V.Lanka i.e., Wards 1 to 6 and added Kalagampudi Village to those six wards and made one MPTC of Y.V.Lanka. The remaining wards i.e., 7 to 12 were merged with Badava to create Badava MPTC. That is how the total number of MPTCs were reduced from 19 to 18. The reason for bifurcation of Y.V.Lanka into two parts is that Kalagampudi Village is situated on one side of Y.V.Lanka, whereas Badava village is situated on its other side. Therefore, by taking into consideration the convenience of the villagers such a bifurcation was made to Y.V.Lanka. There is neither political interference nor irregularity in creation of the two MPTCs. The respondent authorities have scrupulously followed the procedure contemplated under the Panchayat Raj Act and concerned G.Os. While restructuring the MPTCs, the 4th respondent called for the meeting of all parties and informed the villagers of Y.V.Lanka, Badava and Kalagampudi. After making intimation on 06.02.2020, a meeting was conducted in the MPDO office. None have raised any objection for creation of the above two MPTCs. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the procedure was not followed is a baseless allegation. The respondents, thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. After making intimation on 06.02.2020, a meeting was conducted in the MPDO office. None have raised any objection for creation of the above two MPTCs. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the procedure was not followed is a baseless allegation. The respondents, thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing on behalf of respondents. 5. (a) Severely criticizing the proceedings of the 4th respondent bifurcating Y.V.Lanka Gram Panchayat into two parts i.e., Wards 1 to 6 as first part and Wards 7 to 12 as second part and adding first part with Kalagampudi and second part with Badava, learned counsel for petitioner would argue that such bifurcation is bereft of law and logic. He would contend that originally Y.V.Lanka consists of two MPTCs and now by virtue of irrational bifurcation it is left with only one MPTC besides causing inconvenience to the villagers of the Gram Panchayat. He would contend that in the process of such bifurcation and merging with the neighbouring villages, the respondent authorities have not followed the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.877, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and Relief (Elecs-1), dated 03.12.1994 and G.O.(D) No.131, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (C1) Department, dated 16.03.2007. (b) In expatiation, he would submit that G.O.Ms.No.877 facilitates division of Mandal into territorial constituencies for the purpose of allotting MPTC seats for election of Mandal Praja Parishad. As per the guidelines, the total population of Mandal shall be divided by 3500 to arrive at the total number of MPTCs. Each MPTC shall, as far as possible, have population between 3000 and 4000. He would submit that to fix the required population for one MPTC, sometimes need may arise to bifurcate the local area of a village or a gram panchayat. However, he would argue, while making the division of the villages or gram panchayats the geographical contiguity and administrative viability, development of units must be kept in mind as per the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.877. In other words, when the bifurcation of gram panchayat or local area of a village adversely effects the geographical contiguity and administration and development of that gram panchayat or village, the concerned authorities shall have a relook into the aspect and try to obviate such division and find out an alternative methodology for carving out the territorial constituency of Mandal Parishad. Learned counsel would emphasize that, at any rate, bifurcation of a particular gram panchayat or village for the sake of carving out territorial constituency shall not have an adverse impact on the growth and development of the local region. (c) He further argued that G.O.(D) No.131, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (C1) Department, dated 16.03.2007, deals with the delimitation and procedure for up-gradation, down gradation, bifurcation and amalgamation of local bodies and as per the said G.O., the District Collectors are assigned with the task of making public hearing in connection with the up-gradation and down gradation of local bodies, merger/amalgamation of local bodies etc. For such public hearing, a clear procedure is prescribed in the said G.O. Learned counsel would submit, the collector shall convene the first sitting of public hearing by sending notice to MPs, MLAs, elected heads of rural and urban local bodies, besides the District Secretaries of the recognized political parties, reputed NGOs, residential associations by giving wide publicity and in the said sitting, the objectives will have to be explained to all concerned. The local bodies shall be given at least a month’s time to identify the issues relating to delimitation and come up with necessary resolutions along with their representations. Then, again a second sitting of public hearing has to be conducted where the collectors will have to scrutinize the proposals received and individually hear the representatives of the concerned local bodies, political parties and others and basing on such hearing, the collector shall prepare the draft recommendations and send to the heads of departments concerned and simultaneously, publish locally at designated public offices including local body offices. Thereafter, if necessary, the heads of departments may conduct a third sitting at the District Level and hear the requests and objections that may be received on the draft recommendations. The heads of departments will then give their final recommendations to the Government. After all the exercise is over, Government will pass final orders only after the Delimitation Commission of Government of India publishes its final notification. (d) Learned counsel would argue that all the above procedure was given a go by and the bifurcation was made farcically for political advantage. He, thus, prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. After all the exercise is over, Government will pass final orders only after the Delimitation Commission of Government of India publishes its final notification. (d) Learned counsel would argue that all the above procedure was given a go by and the bifurcation was made farcically for political advantage. He, thus, prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader while supporting the impugned draft proceedings issued by the 4th respondent argued that the procedure as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.877, dated 03.12.1994 was scrupulously followed. He argued that G.O.(D) No.131, dated 16.03.2007, has no application in this case. He, thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. The point for consideration is: Whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 8. (a) The admitted facts are that originally Elamanchili Mandal consisted of 21 MPTCs. Later, Kanteru and Adavipalem Gram Panchayats were merged with Palakol Municipality and thereby, the population of Elamanchili Mandal was reduced from 71,890 to 64,458. (b) That being so, G.O.Ms.No.877, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and Relief (Elecs-1), dated 03.12.1994, deals with the division of mandals into territorial constituencies. As per Clause 3 of the said G.O., which was issued in terms of Section 268 r/w 150 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, a mandal shall consist of such number of members from the territorial constituencies that the total number of MPTCs shall depend on the total population of that mandal i.e., for every 3500 population, one MPTC shall be constituted. In that view, since the population of Elamanchili is at present 64,458, it would get 18 MPTCs (64,458/3500=18.41). It appears, the aforesaid 18 MPTCs has been approved by a resolution dated 06.02.2020 passed by the MPDO, E.O. (PR & RD) and MEO. (c) Clause 3 further lays down that while allotting the voters to a mandal constituency, as far as practicable, the continuity in the electoral roles shall be maintained. Provided further that, while pooling the population of two or more villages for the purpose of carving out territorial constituencies of a mandal parishad, as far as practicable, the geographic contiguity shall be maintained. Provided also that, while carving out territorial constituency, as far as practicable, the geographic contiguity and viability as an administrative and developmental unit be maintained. Provided further that, while pooling the population of two or more villages for the purpose of carving out territorial constituencies of a mandal parishad, as far as practicable, the geographic contiguity shall be maintained. Provided also that, while carving out territorial constituency, as far as practicable, the geographic contiguity and viability as an administrative and developmental unit be maintained. (d) The contention of the petitioner is that in view of the bifurcation of Y.V. Lanka, not only the said gram panchayat lost one MPTC but also the geographical contiguity and administrative and developmental activities suffered a set back. In view of bifurcation, the developmental activities may be different between 1 to 6 wards and 7 to 12 wards of Y.V. Lanka and thereby, there will be a lot of imbalance in between the two sets of wards of the same gram panchayat. (e) On the other hand, the contention of learned Government Pleader is that, prior to bifurcation, the other gram panchayats, except Y.V.Lanka in Elamanchili Mandal had one MPTC each, whereas Y.V.Lanka had two MPTCs. Since the number of MPTCs has to be reduced to 18 as per population, necessarily one MPTC from Y.V.Lanka has to be taken out. Further, hither to Badava and Kalagampudi constituted as Badava MPTC. This arrangement was though inevitable but not viable because Badava and Kalagampudi were not contiguous to each other as they are on two different sides intervened by Y.V.Lanka in the middle. Therefore, necessarily Y.V.Lanka had to be bifurcated. Accordingly, it was bifurcated into two parts i.e., wards 1 to 6 as one part and wards 7 to 12 as second part. Learned Government Pleader argued, Kalagampudi which is situated by the side of wards 1 to 6 is merged with those wards and formed into Y.V.Lanka MPTC. Since wards 7 to 12 are situated towards Badava, those wards were merged with the said panchayat and formed into Badava MPTC. In that process, one MPTC could be reduced and geographical contiguity of the three panchayats i.e., Kalagampudi, Y.V.Lanka and Badava could also be maintained without adversely effecting administrative and developmental activities. (f) On perusal of the record, this Court finds the argument of learned Government Pleader formidable one. As rightly submitted by learned Government Pleader, the number of territorial constituencies have to be reduced from 19 to 18 basing on the mandal population. (f) On perusal of the record, this Court finds the argument of learned Government Pleader formidable one. As rightly submitted by learned Government Pleader, the number of territorial constituencies have to be reduced from 19 to 18 basing on the mandal population. Since Y.V.Lanka consists of two MPTCs, naturally the respondent authorities proposed to delimit the same to one MPTC. The submission of the Government Pleader that Kalagampudi and Badava are situated on either side of Y.V.Lanka is not disputed. In that view, the bifurcation of Y.V.Lanka into two sets of wards and merging with the gram panchayats on either side cannot be criticized. As such, bifurcation fulfils the objective of maintaining geographic contiguity of all the three panchayats i.e., Kalagampudi, Y.V.Lanka and Badava. Thereby, the administrative and developmental activities also will not suffer any set back. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner that the division is arbitrary, illogical and against G.O.Ms.No.877, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and Relief (Elecs-1), dated 03.12.1994. (g) So far as the other contention of the petitioners that the authorities have not followed the guidelines in G.O.(D) No.131, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (C1) Department, dated 16.03.2007 is concerned, it must be said that the said G.O. has no application to the instant case. The said G.O. is applicable to the cases of delimitation for up-gradation, down gradation, bifurcation and amalgamation of local bodies but not the constitution of MPTCs by delimiting the mandals. G.O.(D) No.131 says that in case of up-gradation of local bodies i.e., from village panchayats to town panchayats, town panchayats to municipalities, municipalities to municipal corporations and for down-gradation of local bodies i.e., from town panchayats to village panchayats, from municipalities to town panchayats etc., and for bifurcation of local bodies i.e., for bifurcation of very large panchayat unions, the concerned collectors shall convene several sittings with the MPs, MLAs, elected heads of rural and urban local bodies and others to discuss about the aforesaid delimitation. Therefore, the said G.O. relates to the aspect of collector conducting public hearing for up-gradation, down gradation, bifurcation and amalgamation of local bodies. The present case is not of that nature. So on a conspectus of facts and law, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order impugned. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Therefore, the said G.O. relates to the aspect of collector conducting public hearing for up-gradation, down gradation, bifurcation and amalgamation of local bodies. The present case is not of that nature. So on a conspectus of facts and law, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order impugned. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.