ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Notification dated 25.3.2021 (Annexure-1) issued by the Director and Special Secretary, Local Self Government. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Notification had not been issued as per Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. Governor was required to issue the notification as per the conditions incorporated in Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. 3. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Champa Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 2018 AIR SC 2352, wherein it was held as under:- “The establishment of municipalities and their organisations is governed by Part IX A (consisting of Articles 243P to 243ZG) of the Constitution of India inserted in the Constitution by the Constitution 74th (Amendment) Act, 1992 with effect from 1.6.1993. Article 243P(e) defines the expression “Municipality” to mean an institution of self-government constituted under Article 243Q. Article 243Q of the Constitution of India declares as follows: “243Q. Constitution of Municipalities:- (1) There shall be constituted in every State- (a) a Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called) for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area; (b) a Municipal Council for smaller urban area; and (c) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, in accordance with provisions of this Part: Provided that a Municipality under this clause may not be constituted in such urban area or part thereof as the Governor may, having regard to the size of the area and the municipal services being provided or proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment in that area and such other factors as he may deem fit by public notification, specify to be an industrial township. (2) In this article, “a transitional area”, “a smaller urban area” or “a larger urban area” means such area as the Governor may, having regard to the population of the area, the density of the population therein, the revenue generated for local administration, the percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors as he may deem fit, specify by public notification for the purposes of this Part.” 7. Article 243Q contemplates the constitution of three different categories of bodies known as (i) Nagar Panchayat for a transitional area, (ii) Municipal Council for a smaller urban areas and (iii) Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area. 8. It is declared under Article 243Q(2) that the expressions “a transitional area”, “a smaller urban area” and “a larger urban area” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “AREAS”) would mean such areas as may be specified by the Governor by a public notification for the purpose of Part IX A of the Constitution of India. Article 243Q(2) further obligates the Governor to have due regard to the various factors mentioned therein before specifying the AREAS i.e. population of the area, the density of the population, the revenue generated in the area for local administration, percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors as he may deem fit. 9. It, therefore, appears from the scheme of Article 243Q(2) that the Governor is not free to notify ‘AREAS’ in his absolute discretion but is required to fix the parameters necessary to determine whether a particular AREA is a transitional area or a smaller urban area or a larger urban area with due regard to the factors mentioned above. It is implicit that such parameters must be uniform for the entire State. It is only after the determination of the parameters, various municipal bodies contemplated under Article 243Q(1) could be constituted.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore in the case of Kan Singh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. Ors, W.P. No. 16904/2020 decided on 23.3.2021 to support his argument that similar Notification as issued in the present case (Annexure-1) had been set aside. 5. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the Notification (Annexure-9) dated 19.2.2021 has been issued in terms of the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Champa Lal’s case (supra). The said Notification has been passed with a view to maintain parity in the entire State vis-à-vis carving out municipalities. Thereafter, the impugned Notification was issued on 25.3.2021 after taking into consideration all relevant factors as required under Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. 6. The said Notification has been passed with a view to maintain parity in the entire State vis-à-vis carving out municipalities. Thereafter, the impugned Notification was issued on 25.3.2021 after taking into consideration all relevant factors as required under Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. 6. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Notification dated 25.3.2021 whereby the Gram Panchayat Mudhera had been included in Gram Panchayat newly created in Nagar Palika Uchchain. It is the case of the petitioner that the provisions of Article 243Q of the Constitution of India have not been applied. A perusal of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Champa Lal (supra) reveals that the Governor must fix parameters necessary to determine whether a particular area is a transitional area or a smaller urban area or a larger urban area with due regard to the factors like population of the area, density of population, the revenue generated in the area of local administration, percentage of employment in any nonagricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors as he may deem fit. 7. 7. The Notification (Annexure-9) dated 19.2.2021 reads as under:- jktLFkku ljdkj Lok;Rr 'kklu foHkkx Dzekad% i-10¼u-ik-½¼xBu½¼ ½Mh,ych@20@351 fnukad% 19@02@2021 vf/klwpuk Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 243 Fk ds [k.M ¼2½ ,oa jktLFkku uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 2009 ¼2009 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 18½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ esa iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT;iky egksn; }kjk fuEu ekudksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, fdlh LFkkuh; {ks= dks uxjikfydk ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa fopkj fd;k tk ldsxk %& ¼d½ o`gr 'kgjh {ks= ¼uxj fuxe½ 01- {ks= dh tula[;k 05 yk[k ;k vf/kd ;k laHkkx eq[;ky; 02- tula[;k ?kuRo 1000 O;fDr izfr oxZ fdeh ;k vf/kd 03- LFkkuh; iz'kklu dh n`f"V ls jktLo izkfIr ds L=ksr@vkSlr izfr O;fDr vk; 500 :i;s izfr O;fDr ;k vf/kd 04- d`f"k ls fHkUu fdz;kdykiksa esa fu;kstu dk izfr'kr 50 izfr'kr ;k vf/kd 05- vkfFkZd egRo ,oa 'kgjh fodkl dh n`f"V ls vU; egRoiw.kZ fcUnq ¼[k½y?kq 'kgjh {ks= ¼uxj ifj"kn½ 01- {ks= dh tula[;k 01 yk[k ls vf/kd fdUrq 05 yk[k ls de ;k ftyk eq[;ky; 02- tula[;k ?kuRo 500 O;fDr izfr oxZ fdeh ;k vf/kd 03- LFkkuh; iz'kklu dh n`f"V ls jktLo izkfIr ds L=ksr@vkSlr izfr O;fDr vk; 200 :i;s izfr O;fDr ;k vf/kd 04- d`f"k ls fHkUu fdz;kdykiksa esa fu;kstu dk izfr'kr 25 izfr'kr ;k vf/kd 05- vkfFkZd egRo ,oa 'kgjh fodkl dh n`f"V ls vU; egRoiw.kZ fcUnq ¼x½ ladze.k'khy {ks= ¼uxj ikfydk½ 01- {ks= dh tula[;k 10]000 ;k vf/kd 02- tula[;k ?kuRo 200 O;fDr izfr oxZ fdeh ;k vf/kd 03- LFkkuh; iz'kklu dh n`f"V ls jktLo izkfIr ds L=ksr@vkSlr izfr O;fDr vk; 10 :i;s izfr O;fDr ;k vf/kd 04- d`f"k ls fHkUu fdz;kdykiksa esa fu;kstu dk izfr'kr 10 izfr'kr ;k vf/kd 05- vkfFkZd egRo ,oa 'kgjh fodkl dh n`f"V ls vU; egRoiw.kZ fcUnq jkT;iky dh vkKk ls ¼nhid uUnh½ funs'kd ,oa fof'k"B lfpo Thus, a perusal of the above Notification reveals that the areas have been defined after considering the population of the area, density of population, revenue generated in the area for local administration, percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities and economic importance. Thereafter, the impugned Notification (Annexure-1) dated 25.3.2021 was issued. Thereafter, the impugned Notification (Annexure-1) dated 25.3.2021 was issued. The Notification (Annexure-1) dated 25.3.2021 reads as under:- jktLFkku ljdkj Lok;Rr 'kklu foHkkx jkt0 t;iqj Dzekad% i-10¼u-ik-½¼xBu½¼ ½Mh,ych@20@1547 fnukad% 25@03@2021 vf/klwpuk Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 243 Fk ds [k.M ¼2½ ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr fdlh LFkkuh; {ks= dks uxjikfydk cuk;s tkus gsrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk dzekad 351 fnukad 19-02-2021 }kjk ekud fu/kkZfjr fd;s x;s gSA xzke iapk;r mPpSu] xgyÅ] [kjSjk] eq xzke iapk;r mPpSu ftyk Hkjriqj O;olkf;d ,oa vkS/kksfxd n`f"V ls ,d egRoiw.kZ ,oa fodflr LFkku gSA mDr {ks= esa iqfyl Fkkuk] iapk;r lfefr dk;kZy;] lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsUnz] rglhy dk;kZy; vkfn dk;kZy;] fxzM lc LVs'ku] dk;kZy; dfu"B vfHk;Urk ih,pbZMh ,oa vU; ukxfjd lqfo/kk, Hkh fo/keku gSA ctV ?kks"k.kk o"kZ 2021&22 esa mPpSu eq[;ky; ij fjdks bUMLVªh;y ,sfj;k] mi[k.M dk;kZy;] eqfUlQ dksVZ] d`f"k mit e.Mh dh ?kks"k.kk dh xbZ gSA ekuuh; eq[;ea=h egksn; }kjk o"kZ 2020&21 dh ctV ?kks"k.kk esa mPpSu dks uxjikfydk cuk;s tkus dh ?kks"k.kk dh xbZ gSA mDr {ks= foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk dzekad 351 fnukad 19-02-2021 }kjk uxjikfydk cuk;s tkus gsrq fu/kkZfjr ekudksa dks iw.kZ djrh gSA bl laca/k esa eaf=e.My vkKk dzekad 42@2021 fnukad 18 ekpZ] 2021 }kjk Hkh Lohd`fr iznku dh xbZ gSA vr% jktLFkku uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 2009 ¼2009 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 18½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ esa iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj xzke iapk;r mPpSu] xgyÅ] [kjSjk] eq jkT;iky dh vkKk ls ¼nhid uUnh½ funs'kd ,oa fof’k"B lfpo A perusal of the impugned Notification also reveals that all necessary relevant factors have been considered while determining municipalities. Thus, in the present case, the impugned Notification has been issued in terms of the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Champa Lal (supra). Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.