ORDER : 1. By filing this petition under article 226 of the constitution the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the impugned action of respondent no.2 to 4 in passing resolutions at Annexure-A, B & D, qua proposed merger of village of petitioners in to “Motishero” village, as being illegal and suffers from vices of malafides and in violation of principal of natural justice; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to restrain the respondent no.1 to take any final decision on the proposal sent by the respondent no.2 to 4 with regard to bifurcation of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat and thereby proposed merger of village of petitioners in to ‘Motishero’ village, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition in the interest of justice; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 & 4 to call for the meeting of ‘Gram Sabha’ of village panchayat as envisaged under section 93 of the Act, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition in the interest of justice; (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further relief’s as may deemed fit in the interest of Justice;” 2. The Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:- 2.1 That the petitioners are residents of Village-Mormahudi, Taluka-Fatepura, District-Dahod, and said village is part of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat, which is consisting of three villages namely Karmel, Mormahudi and Motishero. That the village of the petitioners fall under the scheduled area as notified by the Government under the Act and, therefore, it would be governed by Scheduled-IV of the Act. That the population of the Village Karmel is 2200, whereas population of village of the petitioners is 444 and population of village Motishero is 735. That the village of the petitioners fall under the scheduled area as notified by the Government under the Act and, therefore, it would be governed by Scheduled-IV of the Act. That the population of the Village Karmel is 2200, whereas population of village of the petitioners is 444 and population of village Motishero is 735. 2.2 It is alleged that respondent no.3 in its purported meeting of 31st March 2021 had resolved by passing a resolution number 4 that, "since Karmel Group Gram Panchayat which is consisting of three villages i.e. Karmel, Mormahudi and Motishero sent proposal for bifurcation of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat into two panchayats i.e. Karmel Group Gram Panchayat and Motishero Gram Panchayat and since it has resolved to merge Mormahudi village into Motishero village, said proposal is accepted." According to the petitioner, the resolution referred to by respondent no. 3 was never in existence, at the relevant point of time and it was passed only on 25th June 2021 i.e. much after resolution of respondent no.3. It is also contended that said resolution is passed behind the back of the elected members of the Karmel Group Gram Panchayat. 2.3 It is contended that respondent nos.3 and 4 with mala fide intention and with a view to get political mileage in upcoming assembly elections as well as gram panchayat election passed the impugned resolution for bifurcation of Group Gram Panchayat into two panchayats whereby it is resolved that village of petitioners will be merged with Motishero Village. 2.4 It is the case of the petitioner that having come to know about said resolution of respondent no.4, they along with other villagers of Mormahudi had objected to it by approaching respondent no.3 by making representation and also made request to call a meeting of Gram Sabha and decision shall be taken after resolution of Gram Sabha. It is contended that instead of considering said objections, on 19.7.2021 respondent no. 3 sent proposal to respondent No.2 who accepted the same in its meeting dated 19th July 2021 and further resolved to send proposal to respondent no.1 for its final approval by passing resolution No.19. 2.5 It is contended by the petitioners that said resolutions/ proposals are made without consultation with the villagers. They have approached respondent nos.2 and 3 time and again, however, no response is received from them. 2.5 It is contended by the petitioners that said resolutions/ proposals are made without consultation with the villagers. They have approached respondent nos.2 and 3 time and again, however, no response is received from them. According to the petitioners, as per the provisions of Section 4 read with section 70 and 93 of the Act, an obligation is cast upon respondent nos.2 to 4 to call for the meeting of Gram Sabha twice a year. It is also contended that if the proposed bifurcation whereby merger of additional village into Motishero village is made then it will cause civil and evil consequences to the villagers. On these grounds they have prayed for the reliefs as reproduced herein above. 3. Respondent no. 3 has filed affidavit in reply, which is at page 55, wherein it is stated that last general election of the Karmel Group Gram Panchayat, Taluka Fatepura, District-Dahod was held on 8th April 2017 by the State Election Commission and, thereafter first general meeting of the newly elected body was held on 4th May 2017, and accordingly, term was to expire on 3rd May 2022. While narrating the population of the village Karmel, Mormahudi and Motishero, it is stated that distance between Village Karmel to Village Motishero is 4 kms. while distance between Village-Karmel to Village-Mormahudi is 3.5 kms. It is also contended that general body of Fatepura Taluka Panchayat received an application dated 30th March 2021 for bifurcation of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat and, accordingly, Fatepura Taluka Panchayat in its meeting dated 31st March 2021 resolved to bifurcate Karmel Group Gram Panchayat and include village Motishero into a new Gram Panchayat with Village-Mormahudi. Said Resolution is annexed at annexure-D. It is also stated that said resolution was with regard to other Gram Panchayat also. 3.1 It is also contended that subsequently the Karmel Group Gram Panchayat forwarded a proposal dated 8th July 2021 to Taluka Development Officer, Fatepura Taluka Panchayat for bifurcation of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat into two Gram Panchayats i.e. Karmel Gram Panchayat and Mormahudi Gram Panchayat by way of including Village Motishero into it. The said proposal has been annexed at annexure-E with the affidavit in reply. According to it, thereafter the proposal dated 15th July 2021 was forwarded to District Development Officer, Dahod, along with relevant records as well as checklist for appropriate action. The said proposal has been annexed at annexure-E with the affidavit in reply. According to it, thereafter the proposal dated 15th July 2021 was forwarded to District Development Officer, Dahod, along with relevant records as well as checklist for appropriate action. Copy of the same is annexed at Annexure-F. It is further contended that subsequently general body of the Dahod District Panchayat in its meeting dated 19th June 2021 passed resolution for bifurcation of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat. Copy of the said resolution is at Annexure-G. It is further contended that thereafter no further actions are taken in view of the present proceedings initiated by the petitioners. It is played to dismiss present Special Civil Application in limine with cost. 4. Against said affidavit in reply, one of the petitioner i.e. Maheshkumar Sardarbhai Pargi, has filed rejoined affidavit and has reiterated the contentions raised in the petition and has submitted that application dated 30th March 2021 is got up one and created only as counter the contentions made in this writ petition and thereby the respondent tried to mislead this court. 5. Heard learning advocate Mr. S.M. Kikani for the petitioners, Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP for the respondent-State and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. Perused the material placed on record and decisions cited at bar. 6. Learned advocate, Mr. Kikani for the petitioners has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of the petition. Mr. Kikani while referring to the resolution passed by the respondents and the material placed on record has vehemently submitted that the respondents have not followed the proper procedure and have passed the resolutions without considering the representation made by the petitioners. He has submitted that when the Gram Panchayat itself has passed resolution in June 2021, then how Taluka Panchayat could pass resolution prior to it i.e. on 31st March 2021. He has also submitted that there is mala-fide intention on the part of the elected body for bifurcation of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat. He has submitted that the matter is still pending before District Panchayat. He has submitted that before deciding the bifurcation of the Karmel Group Gram Panchayat into two panchayats, no villagers were heard. He has also submitted that there is mala-fide intention on the part of the elected body for bifurcation of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat. He has submitted that the matter is still pending before District Panchayat. He has submitted that before deciding the bifurcation of the Karmel Group Gram Panchayat into two panchayats, no villagers were heard. He has submitted that the application upon which action has been taken by the Taluka Panchayat is a letter of the sarpanch, who, in his individual capacity, has wrote a letter for bifurcation. He has submitted that as there was no effective consultation, the impugned resolutions of the respondents deserve to be set aside and they may be directed to hold meeting of Gram Sabha and to take a decision as to bifurcation of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat into two panchayats and inclusion of village of the petitioners in Motishero Gram Panchayat. He also submitted that as per the affidavit of the respondent, the matter is pending with the State Government and that, therefore, the petitioners may be given an opportunity of being heard by the Government. He has prayed to allow the present petition. He has relied upon the decision in the case of Pruthvisinh Amarsinh Chauhan v. K.D. Rawat or his successor in office Secretary reported in 2004 (2) GLH 640 , wherein it is observed as under:- “26. Consultation with the people or the representative organisations and individual citizens in relation to any public better or public policy initiatives can summarily be highlighted as being a commitment on the part of the government or a governmental agency to actively listen to and take into consideration the views of the individual or representative organisation on a given set of legislative or public policy reformative proposals. Indisputably, process of consultation is a mode of involvement that brings with it no guarantee that the view-point of an individual citizens or representative organisations, shall be reflected in actions or documents arising from given public consultation, let alone be translated into actions. 27. There is a considerable philosophical and conceptual body of literature available to facilitate the development of a single coherent definition of "consultation" as "a mechanism for involving rural folks or people or citizens in decision-making, including in relation to public policy development". 27. There is a considerable philosophical and conceptual body of literature available to facilitate the development of a single coherent definition of "consultation" as "a mechanism for involving rural folks or people or citizens in decision-making, including in relation to public policy development". Let it be mentioned that in a period spanning over 30 years, Arnstain (1969), Hart (1992), John (1996), Franklin (1997), Treseder (1997) and Lendonz (2001) are among those who have forwarded the definition of consultation and moreover to have constituted these definitions schematically in relation to other modes on involvement. Roger Hart's adaptation of Armstein's ladder of participation is worth mentioning because it was the model chosen for presentation in national development strategical approach. 28. As this philosophical and conceptual aspect of the word, "consultation" illustrates clearly not only the meaning of consultation, but the regard and esteem in which it is held that it can be a focus for divergent opinions and views. 29. The consultation, therefore, has to be understood as a mechanism for collecting views, selecting opinions, eliciting information that can inform about development of a policy to a public policy maker at the state and national level. The views of the people of village in getting them participated in the process of decision-making and influencing decision-making process is not of a notion, but is a vision and has to be understood with missionary zeal in a democratic governance. The concept of consultation in a democratic set up also augments culture and concept of a federalism. Consultation provides an involvement of obtaining important advice, ideas and divergent opinions from various kinds of people regarding the formation, evaluation, monitoring. Failure to consult or departure from the statutory mechanism of consultation, even if it be directory, has to be taken very seriously, as departure of such process entails evil and civil consequences directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly, deliberately or otherwise, for, effective, efficient and meaningful governance and autonomy of self-government at the bottom of the pyramid will result into de-generation, de-composition and disintegration of the process of democratic values, rule of law and fundamental principles of natural justice as opposed to the evolution of the humanistic and logistic rights. The Reference is, in the result, answered accordingly.” 7. Per contra, learned AGP, Mr. Thakkar has submitted that present petition is premature and the petitioners have no locus. The Reference is, in the result, answered accordingly.” 7. Per contra, learned AGP, Mr. Thakkar has submitted that present petition is premature and the petitioners have no locus. He has submitted that the Government is yet to take any decision under Section 7 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act. He has submitted that since the petition is premature, it may be dismissed. He has relied upon the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench dated 24th August 2009 in Special Civil Application No.14595 of 2008 in case of Harendrasinh Raghunathsinh Rathod Versus State of Gujarat. He has also relied upon an order dated 18th July 2008 passed by co-ordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.29148 of 2007 in the case of Hiteshkumar Kantilal Suthar v. State of Gujarat and others. He has also relied upon a decision in the case of Paroya Group Gram Panchayat v. State of Gujarat reported in 2008 (2) GLR 1096 , wherein it is observed as under:- “14. A Full Bench of this Court in Pruthvisinh Amarsinh Chauhan v. K.D. Rawat and Ors. (supra) had occasion to deal exhaustively, with the requirement of consultation as envisaged in Section 7(2) of the Act. After dealing with the points referred to it for decision, it has been held in paragraphs 9 and 14 as under: 9. ...when the statute requires an authority to consult before taking action, the consultation should not be a mere formality, but must be genuine and meaningful, then only the object of incorporation of this clause in the statute by the makers of law would be fulfilled, particularly in the case before us the consultation would enable the authority to understand and evaluate the implications of the proposed stage on a section of society which is likely to be affected. The authority would know their point of view which would assist it in evaluating or judging the situation and take decision in the best interest of the society. …...... After the consultation, once it culminates into a decision considering the pros and cons of the matter, the exercise comes to an end and chapter is closed. If it is proposed to make a fresh decision, in our opinion, it would be a new chapter and fresh exercise of consultation would be necessary. …...... After the consultation, once it culminates into a decision considering the pros and cons of the matter, the exercise comes to an end and chapter is closed. If it is proposed to make a fresh decision, in our opinion, it would be a new chapter and fresh exercise of consultation would be necessary. It will have to be examined whether there is change in circumstance or not and if so, what are the changes and for that reason, what is the view point of the Panchayat - the affected party. This requirement of law has to be, thus, saluted as if it is altogether a new proposal for decision on aspect of bifurcation. Summing upon its conclusions, the Full Bench answered the points referred for its determination as under: 16. In view of the above discussion, the points for our determination are answered as under: (i) The term 'Consultation' has to be taken as an effective and meaningful and genuine consultation and not a formality. (ii) There is no conflict between the ratio laid down in the case of Nathabhai (supra) and Likhi Group of Gram Panchayat (supra). The conclusions are based on fact of each case, but, there is no conflict in the ratio. (iii) If proposal has culminated into a decision, fresh exercise of consultation would be necessary before taking a fresh decision. We may reiterate that the consultation is not mandatory and every departure therefrom may not render it void or ineffective, but, the provisions of law has to be saluted in its spirit and exercise of consultation should be undertaken. 15. In paragraph 13.1 of the judgment, the Full Bench has held that though the requirement of consultation is not mandatory but is directory, the same cannot be given a total go-bye. What emerges from a cumulative reading of the judgment of the Full Bench is that though the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Act are not mandatory, but the consultation envisaged therein has to be effective, meaningful and genuine consultation and not a mere formality. Further, if a proposal has culminated into a decision, a fresh exercise of consultation would be necessary before taking a fresh decision. Further, if a proposal has culminated into a decision, a fresh exercise of consultation would be necessary before taking a fresh decision. Applying the ratio of the judgment of the Full Bench to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case, it is to be seen whether there has been effective, meaningful and genuine consultation with the Taluka Panchayat, District Panchayat and the concerned Gram Panchayat, before issuing the impugned Notification dated 4.10.2007.” …………. 20. It is evident from a perusal of the communication dated 3-8-2007, annexed as Annexure "B" to the petition that the State Government has written to the respondent No. 2 to consult the newly elected Gram Panchayat and ask them to pass a Resolution regarding their views on the bifurcation of the Gram Panchayat. In this view of the matter, it cannot be denied that there has been fresh consultation, after the formation of the new governing body. The Resolution No. 4/1 dated 16-8-2007 has been passed by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat subsequent to the letter dated 3-8-2007. The requirement of fresh consultation, as held by the Full Bench in Pruthvisinh Amarsinh Chauhan v. K.D. Rawat and Ors. (supra) has, therefore been fulfilled. ……….. 24. Last, but not the least, it is relevant to notice that 'consultation' is not the same as 'concurrence', as has been clarified by the Full Bench in para 13.1 of Pruthvisinh Amarsinh Chauhan v. K.D. Rawat and Ors. (supra); “The affected party must have an opportunity to express its opinion and view on the proposed decision. The term is used as a consultation, and it cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, taken as concurrence or consent, and therefore, after consultation a decision may be taken by the Government.” In the present case, the decision has been taken by issuing the impugned Notification after due consultation, which is not diluted by the temporary withholding of consent for bifurcation, by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat.” 7.1 Other two decisions relied upon by learned AGP are on the same lines. 8. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the rest of the respondents has referred to the contents of the affidavit in reply and has submitted that no illegality has been committed by the concerned authority. He has submitted that the matter rests at the end of the Government and the petition is premature. He has submitted that the petition may be dismissed. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the rest of the respondents has referred to the contents of the affidavit in reply and has submitted that no illegality has been committed by the concerned authority. He has submitted that the matter rests at the end of the Government and the petition is premature. He has submitted that the petition may be dismissed. He has relied upon the decision in the case of Ritaben Babubhai Ninama v. State of Gujarat reported in 2020 (1) GLH 734. 9. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, coupled with the material placed on record and the decisions cited at bar, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the fact that Karmel Group Gram Panchayat is consisting of Village Karmel, Moamahudi and Motishero. It reveals from record that distance between Karmel to Motishero is 4 kms, whereas distance between Karmel to Mormahudi is 3.5 kms. It appears from record that Taluka Panchayat has passed resolution on 31st March 2021 on the basis of one letter dated 30th March 2021 issued on the letter pad of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat, signed by sarpanch of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat for bifurcation of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat and include village Motishero into a new Gram Panchayat with Village-Mormahudi. On perusal of the resolution of Taluka Panchayat at page 62, which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-D, from Resolution No.4, it is clear that it is not only with regard to bifurcation of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat, but also with regard to other Group Gram Panchayats, which include Vagad Group Gram Panchayat, Piplara Group Gram Panchayat, Vankaner Group Gram Panchayat, Patvel Group Gram Panchayat, Nindaka Gram Panchayat etc. It also reveals from the material on record that said resolution of the Taluka Panchayat has been send to District Panchayat. As per the resolution dated 19th July 2021 of the District Panchayat, Dahod, the proposal for bifurcation of Group Gram Panchayats relating to various Talukas, which includes Jhalod, Fatepura, Limkheda and Devgadh Bariya have been approved and proposed to be sent to the Government. It also reveals from the affidavit in reply that thereafter the matter is not proceeded with and the matter is pending with the State Government. At this time, it is pertinent to refer to section 7 of the Gujarat Panchayats at which provides as under:- “7. It also reveals from the affidavit in reply that thereafter the matter is not proceeded with and the matter is pending with the State Government. At this time, it is pertinent to refer to section 7 of the Gujarat Panchayats at which provides as under:- “7. (1) After making such inquiries as may be prescribed, the competent authority may recommend any local area comprising a revenue village, or a group of revenue villages, or hamlets forming part of a revenue village, for being specified a village under clause (g) of article 243 of the Constitution if the population of such local area does not exceed 1 [twenty-five thousand.] (2) After consultation with the taluka panchayat, the district panchayat and village panchayat concerned (if already constituted), the competent authority may at any time recommend inclusion within or exclusion from any villages any local area or otherwise alternation of limits of any village, or recommend cesser of any local area to be a village, to the Governor for exercise of his powers under clause (g) of article 243 of the the Constitution.” 10. Now, admittedly in the present matter, no final decision is yet taken by the State Government. Considering the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, there would be proper consultation by the competent authority before issuance of appropriate notification for bifurcation of the Group Gram Panchayat. Since no final decision of bifurcation of Group Gram Panchayat is yet taken by the Government, there is a remedy available to the petitioners to approach competent authority for redressal of the grievance against proposal of bifurcation of Karmel Group Gram Panchayat. 11. It is for the Government to take a policy decision of bifurcation of any Group Gram Panchayat and to include any village in any Gram Panchayat. Since no decision is yet taken by the State Government in this regard, present petition is premature. However, it is expected that before taking any decision under Section 7 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, the competent authority would make consultation, as provided in Section 7 of the Act. 12. With this observation, present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.