JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief: "To issue appropriate writ, order or directions to respondent No.1 to divide existing Gram Panchayat Dabhota into new Gram Panchayat Dabhota and Gram Panchayat Ratyor and declare the instructions dated 20th October 2020 issued by Election Commission are arbitrary, beyond its jurisdiction, in breach of law and the criteria laid down by respondent State dated 4.9.2020 in terms of distance and number villages is arbitrary and unconstitutional. 2. It is more than settled that the primary purpose of a writ of mandamus, is to protect and establish rights and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justiceiae). The grant or refusal of the writ is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established. 3. In Wharton's Law Lexicon, the word 'Right' means; 1. is a legally protected interest, 2. is an averment of entitlement arising out of legal rules, 3. right is an interest recognised and protected by moral or legal rules and 4. right, comprehends every right known to the law. 4. In K.J.Aiyar's Judicial Dictionary, the word 'Right' means; 1. a right is a legally protected interest and 2. a right is an interest which is recognised and protected by law. 5. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, the word 'Right' means, is where one hath a thing that was taken from another wrongfully, as by disseisin, discontinuance, or putting out, or such like, and the challenge or claim that he hath who should have the thing, is called right. 6. Writ of mandamus cannot be issued merely because a person is praying for. One must establish the right first and then he must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for mandamus. The said position is well settled in a series of decisions. 7. One must establish the right first and then he must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for mandamus. The said position is well settled in a series of decisions. 7. In Comptroller and Auditor General of India vs. K.S.Jegannathan, (1987) AIR SC 537 = 1986 (2) SCC 679 , a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edition, Vol.I. Paragraph 89, about the efficacy of mandamus: "89.Nature of Mandamus.-- ..... is to remedy defects of justice; and accordingly it will issue, to the end that justice may be done, in all cases where there is a specific legal right and no specific legal remedy, for enforcing that right; and it may issue in cases where, although there is an alternative legal remedy, yet that mode of redress is less convenient, beneficial and effectual." 8. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors., (1996) 9 SCC 309 , in paragraph 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition..... 9. As observed above a writ of mandamus means a command which is issued in favour of a person who establishes an inherent legal right in his case. Such a writ is issued against a person who has a legal duty or obligation to perform but has failed or neglected to do so. It needs no special emphasis to state that such a legal duty emanates either from discharge of a public duty or operation of law. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Director of Settlements, A.P. & Ors. v. M.R. Apparao & Anr.,2002 4 SCC 638 wherein it has been stated thus: "The expression "for any other purpose" in Article 226 makes the jurisdiction of the High Courts more extensive but yet the Courts must exercise the same with certain restraints and within some parameters. v. M.R. Apparao & Anr.,2002 4 SCC 638 wherein it has been stated thus: "The expression "for any other purpose" in Article 226 makes the jurisdiction of the High Courts more extensive but yet the Courts must exercise the same with certain restraints and within some parameters. One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the Court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed. In other words, existence of a legal right of a citizen and performance of any corresponding legal duty by the State or any public authority, could be enforced by issuance of a writ of mandamus. "Mandamus" means a command. It differs from the writs of prohibition or certiorari in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. Mandamus is a command issued to direct any person, corporation, inferior courts or Government, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. A mandamus is available against any public authority including administrative and local bodies, and it would lie to any person who is under a duty imposed by a statute or by the common law to do a particular act. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the applicant has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition (Kalyan Singh v. State of UP, (1962) AIR SC 1183). The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law." 10. In Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the said issue and held that 'for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. In Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the said issue and held that 'for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. 11. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 280 in paragraphs 11 and 12 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.: Note 187.-Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. Note 192.-Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Note 206.- ....The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action. 12. These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, (1978) 1 SCR 375 , after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah, (1966) 1 SCR 120 , Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v. Nalanda College, (1962) Supp2 SCR 144 and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar, (1973) AIR SC 964, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows in para 15 of the Reports (SCC): (Sipahi Singh case, SCC pp. 152-53) 15. .... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance.... In the instant case, it has not been shown by Respondent 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on Respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that Respondent 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same. 13. Therefore, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. 14. Bearing in mind the aforesaid legal position, it is more than settled that creation/bifurcation of the Gram Panchayat(s) is essentially a policy matter, which is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State. 15. Additionally and more importantly, declaration of Sabha area is required to be done, in accordance with Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which may be at the instance of the Gram Sabha concerned or at the instance of the Government, as is clearly evident from the bare reading of Section 3 of the Act, which reads as under:- 3. Declaration of Sabha area.- (1) The Government may, by notification, declare any village or group of contiguous villages with a population of not less than one thousand and not more than five thousand to constitute one or more Sabha areas for the purposes of this act and also specify its headquarter: Provided that in a Scheduled area the Government may by order declare any village or group of contiguous villages with a population of less than one thousand to constitute a Sabha area: Provided further that the Government may, after having due regard of the geographical location, lack of means of transport and communication and administrative convenience, declare an area comprising a village or group of contiguous villages having a population either less than one thousand or more than five thousand to constitute a Sabha area. (2) The Government may, at the request of the Gram Sabha concerned or otherwise, and after previous publication of a proposal by a notification, at any time,- (a) increase any Sabha area by including within such Sabha area any village or group of villages; or (b) diminish any Sabha area by excluding from such Sabha area any village or group of villages; or (c) alter the headquarter of any Sabha area; or (d) alter the name of any Sabha area; or (e) declare that any area shall cease to be a Sabha area: 2[***********] 3[(2-A) When on account of the reason that the Sabha area is, during the term of the Gram Panchayat, increased or diminished or ceased under sub-section (2), the increase or diminution or cessation of the Sabha area shall not affect the term of the office bearers of Gram Panchayat, till the expiration of the duration of the Gram Panchayat specified in sub-section (1) of section 120 or its dissolution under section 140 of this Act.] (3) If the whole of the Sabha area is included in a municipality, the Sabha area shall cease to exist and its assets and liabilities shall in the manner prescribed be disposed of. 16. The instant petition, no doubt, makes reference to certain resolutions of the Gram Panchayat recommending therein its bifurcation. In case the respondents have not given effect to upon the resolutions, then the aggrieved, if any, shall only be the Gram Panchayat and not any individual, thus the petitioners have no locus standi to file the instant petition. 16. The instant petition, no doubt, makes reference to certain resolutions of the Gram Panchayat recommending therein its bifurcation. In case the respondents have not given effect to upon the resolutions, then the aggrieved, if any, shall only be the Gram Panchayat and not any individual, thus the petitioners have no locus standi to file the instant petition. In such circumstances, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4725/2020, titled as Gram Panchayat Baruna vs. State of H.P. and ors., dated 27.10.2020, wherein this Court directed the respondents to associate the writ petitioner before making a decision to bifurcate the Panchayat, is totally misplaced as in that case, it was the Gram Panchayat itself, which had come forward to agitate its grievance, which is not the fact situation obtaining in the instant case. 17. Noticeably, save and except for the relief, as reproduced above, the petitioners have not sought for any other relief and once that be so, obviously then the issue, as raised in this petition, is not justifiable as no mandamus can be sought for bifurcation of Gram Panchayat(s) under Article 226 of the Constitution at the instance of an individual. 18. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.