ORDER : T. MADHAVI DEVI, J. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4 th respondent in publishing the final list of MPTCs in P.A. Pally Mandal of Nalgonda District without publishing the draft publication of MPTCs by calling for objections and without disposing of the objections received thereon as arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the orders of the 1 st respondent vide Memo No.PRRD- MZAD/3/1239/2024 dt.30.01.2025 and consequently to set aside the impugned publication of the final list vide Pro.No.D3/49/2025/ZPP dt.03.02.2025 and to direct the respondent to issue draft notification by calling for objections and thereafter to issue final notification of MPTCs in P.A.Pally Mandal by adhering strictly to the guidelines of the 1 st respondent vide Memo No.PRRD-MZAD/3/1239/2024, dt.30.01.2025 and to pass such other order or orders. 2. On issuance of the notice by this Court, the learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General representing the respondents has produced a copy of the written instructions along with a copy of the draft publication dt.30.01.2025 before this Court. It was submitted that after issuance of the notification, some objections/suggestions thereto were received and thereafter, only the final list of MPTCs (Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies) of Pedda Adiserlapally Mandal (P.A.Pally Mandal) dt.03.02.2025 has been issued and that due procedure has been followed for issuance of the same. In view of these submissions, the petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2025 to amend the prayer challenging the final list of MPTCs of P.A.Pally Mandal, Nalgonda District dt.03.02.2025 and the same was allowed vide orders dt.18.06.2025. Thereafter, a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4 to the amended prayer in the Writ Petition and the petitioner also filed a reply affidavit to the same. 3. Thereafter, a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4 to the amended prayer in the Writ Petition and the petitioner also filed a reply affidavit to the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the submissions made in the writ affidavit as well as in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.2 of 2025, submitted that Section 144 of TELANGANA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT , 2018 (for short, “the Act”) prescribes the procedure for division of Mandal into constituencies and prescribes that the population of each Territorial Constituency, as far as practicable, shall consist of the population ranging between three thousand and four thousand and that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it shall, as far as practicable, be the same throughout the Mandal Praja Parishad area. It is submitted that vide Memo dt.30.01.2025 for delimitation of MPTCs in P.A.Pally, Nalgonda, a schedule was given calling for objections/ suggestions to be received till 31.01.2025 and for disposing of the objections, time was also given up to 02.02.2025. It is stated that in the draft notification, Munavath Thanda Gram Panchayat was shown as part of Balaji Nagar MPTC with a population of 5039. It is further stated that Munavath Thanda Gram Panchayat is in Balaji Nagar MPTC and accordingly it was shown as existing and further P.A.Pally MPTC, as there were no other Gram Panchayats, was shown as existing, but there was no proposal to delete Munavath Thanda Gram Panchayat from Balaji Nagar MPTC and to include the same in P.A.Pally MPTC. In the absence of any such proposal, it is submitted that there is no meaning in issuing the draft notification and on the basis of such invalid draft notification, the issuance of final notification cannot be sustained and is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the MLA of Devarakonda has allegedly given a representation for delimitation, but according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same was not given pursuant to the draft notification and hence it cannot be considered for the purpose of fulfilment of Section 144 procedure. It is submitted that there is no reference to the draft notification in the representation of the MLA and the same was made requesting the District Collector to consider for deletion of Munavath Thanda Gram Panchayat from Balaji Nagar MPTC and inclusion of the same in P.A.Pally MPTC. It is submitted that there is no reference to the draft notification in the representation of the MLA and the same was made requesting the District Collector to consider for deletion of Munavath Thanda Gram Panchayat from Balaji Nagar MPTC and inclusion of the same in P.A.Pally MPTC. It is stated that any person who wishes to lodge any claim or objection for inclusion/deletion from any MPTCs in the Mandal may, with sufficient reasons and as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.877 dt.03.12.1994 and Govt. Memo dt.30.01.2025, submit a representation, but in this case, the representation was not submitted pursuant to the draft notification and therefore, it cannot be considered as compliance with the prescribed procedure. He further submitted that wide publicity was not given to the draft publication and therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the same at the time of filing of the Writ Petition. It is submitted that the draft publication has to be placed at various places, i.e., Notice Boards of the concerned Gram Panchayats and office of MPDO and by way of tom tom in the village or at least a copy of the same ought to have been sent to the concerned Gram Panchayats to enable the concerned/affected parties to make representation, if any. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tobacco Company , [ AIR 1998 SC 668 ] in support of this contention. It is further submitted that as per A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages) Rules, 1994 and Rule 9 thereof, wherever it becomes necessary to take action under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 to exclude any local area from a village or to include any local area in a village or to unite two or more villages as parts of any village, the boundaries of any village or to alter the name of any village, in giving effect to these rules, the Commissioner shall, before issuing any notification therefor, give the Gram Panchayat which shall be affected by issuance of such a notification, an opportunity of showing cause against the proposal to indicate its decision within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice and consider the objections, if any, of such Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that in this case, no such procedure has been followed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore sought setting aside of the final list and directing the respondents to issue a fresh proposal calling for objections and to take action in accordance with the guidelines, if it is found to be necessary. 4. Respondent No.4 has filed a counter affidavit stating that the mandate under Section 144 of the Act has been followed to the extent possible while issuing the draft publication and also the final publication and therefore, they warrant no interference. It is submitted that if Munavath Thanda Gram Panchayat remains included in Balaji Nagar MPTC, the population of Balaji Nagar MPTC, is exceeding 5000, i.e., it was 5039 and if Munavath Thanda is deleted from Balaji Nagar and is included in P.A.Pally MPTC, the population is coming to 4018 and therefore, all the prescribed parameters will be satisfied. It is submitted that a memo dt.30.01.2025 was issued by the Government detailing the schedule that has to be followed for delimitation of Mandal Praja Parishad, P.A.Pally Mandal, Nalgonda and as per the draft publication of MPTCs in P.A.Pally as given on 30.01.2025, the objections received from 30.01.2025 to 31.01.2025 were to be disposed of between 01.02.2025 and 02.02.2025 and the final publication was to be made on 03.02.2025. It is stated that in the draft list, Munavath Thanda was shown as part of Balaji Nagar MPTC with a population of 5039 and thereafter, a meeting was conducted with all political parties inviting their views and objections and that the representatives of all political parties participated in the said meeting and expressed their views and opinions and that the Member of Legislative Assembly of the Constituency made a representation to the District Collector with two requests, (1) to delete Pothireddy Pally Gram Panchayat from Angadipeta X roads MPTC and to include it in Akkampally MPTC and (2) to delete Munavath Thanda from Balaji Nagar and to include it in P.A.Pally. It is submitted that pursuant to the said representation, it was found that inclusion of Munavath Thanda in P.A.Pally MPTC would be fulfilling the requirement of Section 144 of the Act and accordingly, a memo was issued by the Government with the final publication dt.03.02.2025 including Munavath Thanda Gram Panchayat in P.A.Pally MPTC. It is submitted that pursuant to the said representation, it was found that inclusion of Munavath Thanda in P.A.Pally MPTC would be fulfilling the requirement of Section 144 of the Act and accordingly, a memo was issued by the Government with the final publication dt.03.02.2025 including Munavath Thanda Gram Panchayat in P.A.Pally MPTC. Therefore, the allegations of the petitioner have been denied in toto and submitted that due procedure has been followed and no interference is called for. It is further stated that initially the petitioner has stated that the draft notification was not issued and now the petitioner has changed his stand to say that the objections were not called for and procedure has not been followed, which is incorrect. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder and a reply affidavit reiterating his stand made in the writ petition as well as in the petition filed to amend the prayer. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the draft list of MPTC in P.A.Pally Mandal was issued on 30.01.2025 along with the enclosure in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.877, PR, RD & Relief (Elections-I) Department, dt.03.12.1994 calling for objections, if any, to be submitted from 30.01.2025 to 31.01.2025. In the draft list, in P.A.Pally Mandal, Balaji Nagar was the MPTC, wherein four Gram Panchayats are included, i.e., Balaji Nagar, Rampuram, Yerragunta Thanda and Munavath Thanda and its total population was 5039 and all the four Gram Panchayats are mentioned to be existing Gram Panchayats and column No.3 is P.A.Pally Mandal and MPTC Constituency is also mentioned and Gram Panchayats are also mentioned and the total population of P.A. Pally is 3320 and the remarks column is left as blank and in the final publication list of MPTCs, Balaji Nagar MPTC is shown to be having only three Gram Panchayats, i.e., Balaji Nagar, Rampuram and Yerragunta Thanda with a total population of 4241 and Munavath Thanda Gram Panchayat is now included in P.A.Pally and P.A.Pally MPTC is having a total population of 4118. The main contention of the petitioner is that wide publicity has not been given calling for objections/suggestions, while according to the respondents, the said draft notification has been placed in respective places as required under the Act and there is sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act. The main contention of the petitioner is that wide publicity has not been given calling for objections/suggestions, while according to the respondents, the said draft notification has been placed in respective places as required under the Act and there is sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, for adjudication of this Writ Petition, it is necessary to go into the procedure prescribed for division of a Mandal into constituencies. Section 144 of the TELANGANA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT , 2018 reads as under: “144. Division of Mandal into constituencies— For the purpose of electing the members specified in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 143, the Commissioner, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, divide each Mandal Praja Parishad area into as many territorial constituencies as he may, by notification specify in such manner that as far as practicable, shall consist of a population ranging between three thousand and four thousand, and that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it shall, as far as practicable, be the same throughout the Mandal Praja Parishad area: Provide that the ratio between the population of the territorial area of a Mandal Praja Parishad and the number of seats in such Mandal Praja Parishad to be filled by election shall, as far as practicable, be the same throughout the State.” Further, vide G.O.Ms.No.877 dt.03.12.1994, the Rules relating to division of Mandals into Constituencies under A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 were framed and instructions for division of a Mandal into a Territorial Constituency and nomenclature of Mandal Territorial Constituency and Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency were issued vide Memo No.66402/Elections-1/94, Panchayat Raj, dt.13.01.1995 and the procedure for carving out Mandal Territorial Constituencies has been provided as under: “1. The population of a Mandal Constituency should not exceed 4000 and should not be less than 3000. In extraordinary circumstances, where it becomes extremely necessary to carve out a Mandal territorial constituency beyond the limits stated above send proposals for approval of Commissioner, Panchayat Raj. .... 6. In a big Gram Panchayat there is likelyhood of carving out many Mandal Territorial Constituencies. In such cases, see that contiguity of wards/ localities is maintained. 7. Merge only the neighboring or adjacent Gram Panchayats. 8. Make good the short fall in population, by clubbing the population to the last ward. 9. .... 6. In a big Gram Panchayat there is likelyhood of carving out many Mandal Territorial Constituencies. In such cases, see that contiguity of wards/ localities is maintained. 7. Merge only the neighboring or adjacent Gram Panchayats. 8. Make good the short fall in population, by clubbing the population to the last ward. 9. Club the wards such a way that continuity in the electoral rolls is maintained. 10. While clubbing two Gram Panchayats, see that the electoral rolls of a Panchayat are continuous without breaks.” Further, the conditions under which merger or deletion shall not be made, are also given in detail, but it is not the case of the petitioner that this case falls in any of those conditions. As regards the conditions to be fulfilled, it is noticed that, in addition to the population being not less than 3000 and not more than 4000, the merging of villages should be only of neighbouring and adjacent Gram Panchayats and they should be clubbed in such a way that the geographic contiguity of wards/localities is maintained and also continuity in electoral roll is maintained. From the copy of the draft publication, it is noticed that not only objections but also claims were called for. Therefore, even if there is no proposal from the Government to bifurcate or merge two Gram Panchayats and form a new MPTC, the proposal can emerge from political parties or public representatives or any person of the concerned area. In this case, it appears that a representation has been received from the MLA on 31.01.2025 with two suggestions, and on consideration of the same, Munavath Thanda from Balaji Nagar Constituency has been merged with P.A.Pally Gram Panchayat to form P.A.Pally MPTC. Though the representation of the MLA does not refer to the draft publication, it does refer to the reorganisation of MPTCs and it was submitted during the time permitted to submit the claim/objection and therefore, it can safely be presumed to be submitted pursuant to the draft publication. Though the representation of the MLA does not refer to the draft publication, it does refer to the reorganisation of MPTCs and it was submitted during the time permitted to submit the claim/objection and therefore, it can safely be presumed to be submitted pursuant to the draft publication. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that strict procedure has not been followed for merging the Munavath Thanda Gram Panchayat with P.A.Pally Gram Panchayat and MPTC to form P.A.Pally MPTC, this Court finds that the draft publication was directed to be kept open for inspection in the MPTCs concerned in Mandal Praja Parishad, P.A.Pally and in the office of the Zilla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda. Therefore, except for publicity by tom tom in the villages, the other procedure seems to have been followed. G.O.(D) No.131 dt.16.03.2007, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and placed before this Court, does not appear to be relevant for the State of United A.P. or the State of Telangana after bifurcation, as there is no reference to Mandals therein, though the subject of Mandals was introduced in the year 1980 in the State of A.P. The said G.O. is assumedly issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. This Court thus opines that though ideally further publicity ought to have been given to the draft publication, broad guidelines for merger of Gram Panchayats with P.A.Pally are fulfilled in this case. Further, neither the petitioner nor any of the villagers of Munavath Thanda or any of the villagers of P.A.Pally Gram Panchayat have shown as to how the said merger of Munavath Thanda with P.A.Pally has resulted in any prejudice to them. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the final list of publication. 7. As regards the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tobacco Company (1 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that it is distinguishable on facts as in that case, the issue was the effective date of a notification, whereas, in this case, it is the date of draft publication. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 12 of its order has observed thus: “12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 12 of its order has observed thus: “12. We hold that a Central Excise Notification can be said to have been published, except when it is provided otherwise, when it is so issued as to make it known to the public. It would be a proper publication if it is published in such a manner that persons can, if they are so interested, acquaint themselves with its contents. If publication is through a Gazette then mere printing of it in the Gazette would not be enough. Unless the Gazette containing the notification is made available to the public, the notification cannot be said to have been duly published.” 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in both these Writ Petitions shall also stand dismissed.