Paroya Group Gam Panchayat and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - it is only after taking into consideration the resolutions passed by the gram panchayat and the other relevant documents on record as well as the geographical and other factors obtaining in the said area that the state government has issued the notification for bifurcation of paroya gram panchayat by creating a new rodhra gram panchayat and now, by letter dated 20-10-2007 an administrator has been appointed,who has taken charge of the said gram panchayat. (a) that the notification dated 4-10-2007, in exercise of powers conferred under section 7 of the act, whereby the erstwhile paroya gram panchayat has been bifurcated, has been issued during the period when the elections to the legislative assembly in the state of gujarat were to take place and as such the same is issued in order to woo the influential and rich people ahead of the said elections. it is further submitted that people at large will not benefit from a bifurcation of the petitioner-gram panchayat and on this ground as well the impugned notification deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. on the above grounds, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition be allowed and the impugned notification dated 4-10-2007 as well as the orders dated 20-10-2007 and 22-10-2007 be quashed and set aside. 5 dated 27-3-2006, as well as resolution no. it is submitted by the learned assistant government pleader that the documents on record clearly show that there has been consultation at every level as envisaged by the provisions of section 7(2) of the act. 4/1 dated 16-8-2007 passed, which clearly goes to show that the same has been passed in order to keep intact the term of office of the present office bearers. 3, at length and in great detail, and have gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed thereto. 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. acting upon the above two resolutions, the taluka panchayat and the district panchayat, after making necessary inquiries, submitted the requisite proposal to the state government for bifurcation of the petitioner-gram panchayat, which ultimately culminated in the issuance of notification dated 4-10-2007. 17. the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the impugned notification has been issued as a political gimmick in order to woo the rich and influential persons of the area before the impending elections to the legislative assembly, cannot be accepted, for the reason that initially the proposal for bifurcation emanated from the petitioner-gram panchayat itself, by way of resolutions dated 27-3-2006 and 31-3-2006 respectively. 4(1) dated 16-8-2007, whereby the majority has resolved that, for the time being consent for bifurcation of the petitioner-gram panchayat is being withheld, is clearly an after thought since it has been passed by the newly-formed body. what is contemplated is only 'consultation',which has effectively taken place, as is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the documents on the record. when policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion.abhilasha kumari, j.1. by filing the present petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification dated 4-10-2007 (annexed as annexure 'a' to the petition) issued by the respondent no. 1 in exercise of powers under section 7 of the gujarat panchayats act, 1993 ('the act' for short) whereby, paroya group gram panchayat has been bifurcated and two villages, namely, rodhra and rodhra chhapara (petapara) came to be separated from paroya group gram panchayat by forming two separate gram panchayats, namely, paroya gram panchayat consisting of villages paroya, dholivav (petapara), jagnath (petapara) and navanana (petapara) and, rodhra gram panchayat consisting of villages rodhra and rodhra chhapara (petapara). during the pendency of the petition an amendment to the petition has been carried out whereby, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 20-10-2007 and 22-10-2007 whereby an administrator has been appointed for the petitioner-gram panchayat.2. the petitioner no. 1 is the paroya group gram panchayat. the petitioner no. 2 is the sarpanch of the said gram panchayat and the petitioners nos. 3 to 10 are elected members of the paroya group gram panchayat.3. briefly stated, the facts of the case as emerging from a perusal of the averments made in the petition are that, the paroya group gram panchayat consisted of a total of six villages, namely, (1) paroya (revenue village), (2) dholivav (petapara), (3)jagnath (petapara), (4) navanana (petapara), (5) rodhra (revenue village) and (6) rodhra chhapara(petapara). it is stated in the petition that village rodhra is most backward and undeveloped, in comparison with the other villages comprising paroya group gram panchayat. the population and revenue income of village paroya is also higher than that of village rodhra,and if village rodhra is separated from paroya group gram panchayat, it would be difficult to run its administration independently, and the village would remain undeveloped in comparison to the other villages. it is averred in the petition that on 4-12-2006 a proposal was sent to the respondents by the earlier governing body of the paroya group gram panchayat, to separate village rodhra from the paroya group gram panchayat by forming a separate rodhra gram panchayat. in response to the said proposal, the respondent no. 1, by communication dated 3-8-2007, addressed certain queries to the respondent no. 2 (deputy commissioner), asking for information and details regarding the proposal dated 4-12-2006. the averments in the petition reveal, that in a special meeting of the paroya group gram panchayat held on 16-8-2007, a resolution came to be passed by the majority, stating that for the present, consent is not given for the proposal regarding the bifurcation of the gram panchayat. the copy of the resolution no. 4/1 dated 16-8-2007 is annexed as annexure 'c' to the petition. according to the averments made in the petition, village paroya is centrally located and the other villages are backward and undeveloped and lack proper transportation facilities. it is further averred in the petition that the annual revenue income of the other villages is lesser in comparison to that of village paroya, and since the proposal for bifurcation would entail hardship for the other villages such as rodhra and rodhra chhapara, the resolution no. 5 whereby, for the present, consent was not given to the proposal of bifurcation, has been passed. however, the respondent no. 1, exercising powers under section 7 of the act has issued notification dated 4-10-2007 whereby paroya group gram panchayat has been bifurcated and two gram panchayats namely, paroya gram panchayat (revenue village) and rodhra gram panchayat (revenue village) have been formed. consequent upon the issuance of notification dated 4-10-2007, the respondents have appointed an administrator, vide order dated 20-10-2007 and further, vide order dated 22-10-2007, the administrator has been directed to take charge, as such. the copies of the above mentioned orders are annexed as annexure 'e' (collectively) to the petition. being aggrieved by the issuance of notification dated 4-10-2007 and the orders dated 20-10-2007 and 22-10-2007, the petitioners have filed the present petition.4. an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondents nos. 1 and 2 has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 by shri b.a.gameti, under secretary, panchayats and rural development department, gandhinagar, affirmed on 24-1-2008, denying the averments made in the petition. it is stated in the said affidavit-in-reply that the villagers of rodhra made an application dated 18-3-2006 for the bifurcation of paroya group gram panchayat, a copy of which is annexed as annexure 'i' to the reply. pursuant thereto, paroya group gram panchayat has passed resolution no. 5 dated 27-3-2006 and resolution no. 4 dated 31-3-2006, resolving to bifurcate the paroya gram panchayat. it is stated in the said resolution that since the gosambi river is passing between villages rodhra and paroya, it is very difficult for the villagers to come to paroya village for their day-to-day work as there are no proper transportation facilities and as such, they have to come on foot all the way from village rodhra to village paroya, which entails a great deal of hardship and waste of time. copies of the resolutions dated 27-3-2006 and 31-3-2006 are annexed collectively as annexure 'ii' to the reply. it is further emphasised in the reply-affidavit that pursuant to the above two resolutions, the taluka panchayat, khedbrahma has also passed resolution no. 6 dated 4-9-2006, resolving to give consent for the bifurcation of paroya gram panchayat. a copy of this resolution is annexed as annexure 'iii' to the reply. the averments in the said reply-affidavit go to state that considering all the documents and resolutions passed by the gram panchayat and taluka panchayat and, looking to the difficulties faced by the people at large, the district panchayat, sabarkantha has also passed resolution no. 230 dated 27-10-2006 for the bifurcation of paroya gram panchayat and a request to this effect was made to the state government. a copy of the resolution no. 230 dated 27-10-2006 of the district panchayat is annexed as annexure 'iv' to the reply. it is further emphasised that it is only after considering the resolutions of the concerned gram panchayat and considering the geographical and other relevant conditions prevailing in the area that the state government has issued the notification dated 4-10-2007 for the benefit of the petitioner-gram panchayat, by creating a new rodhra gram panchayat, in the larger interest of the people of the area. it is also stated therein that when gram panchayats are created, the same are given various grants from the government for the purpose of carrying out developmental work which will bring progress to the concerned villages and, further various exemptions are also given in respect of water taxes, electricity taxes, service charges, etc. and if there are different gram panchayats, the number of grants received by the gram panchayat would be more which would ultimately be beneficial for the people at large and would be in the larger public interest and, therefore, the government resolution suffers from no legal infirmity and the petition may be dismissed.5. an affidavit-in-reply has also been filed by respondent no. 3-district development officer, sabarkantha dated 17-11-2007, denying the averments made in the petition and more or less reiterating the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondents nos. 1 and 2. it is submitted in the said reply-affidavit that the paroya group gram panchayat has passed resolution no. 5 dated 27-3-2006 resolving to bifurcate the gram panchayat and another resolution no. 4 dated 31-3-2006, to the same effect, has also been passed by the said panchayat. it is further submitted that the taluka panchayat, khedbrahma, taking into consideration the resolutions passed by the gram panchayat, has also passed resolution no. 6 dated 4-9-2006 for bifurcation of the paroya gram panchayat and consequent upon the same, the district panchayat,sabarkantha has passed resolution no. 230 dated 27-10-2006, and has made a request to this effect to the state government. it is only after taking into consideration the resolutions passed by the gram panchayat and the other relevant documents on record as well as the geographical and other factors obtaining in the said area that the state government has issued the notification for bifurcation of paroya gram panchayat by creating a new rodhra gram panchayat and now, by letter dated 20-10-2007 an administrator has been appointed,who has taken charge of the said gram panchayat. it is emphasised that it is only after taking into consideration the resolutions and representations of the gram panchayat and after fulfilling the requirements of law that the impugned notification has been issued and since the provisions of the act have been complied with, the petition may be dismissed.6. the petitioners have filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent no. 3, denying the averments made therein and reiterating the averments made in the petition.7. ms. sneha a. joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted as under:(a) that the notification dated 4-10-2007, in exercise of powers conferred under section 7 of the act, whereby the erstwhile paroya gram panchayat has been bifurcated, has been issued during the period when the elections to the legislative assembly in the state of gujarat were to take place and as such the same is issued in order to woo the influential and rich people ahead of the said elections. the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no justification for the bifurcation of the petitioner-gram panchayat just a few days before the elections and since the notification has been issued as a political gimmick, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.(b) that prior to the issuance of the notification dated 4-10-2007, the petitioner-gram panchayat has not been consulted. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that consultation, as envisaged by the provisions of section 7(2) of the act, should be genuine and effective consultation and not merely a paper consultation, as was done in the present case and since there is no proper and effective consultation, the provisions of section 7(2) of the act have been violated. it is further emphasised by ms. sneha a. joshi that the respondents have not considered the resolution no. 4/1 dated 16-8-2007 passed by the majority of the gram panchayat in its proper perspective, where it has been resolved that, for the present, the gram panchayat is withholding the consent for the proposed bifurcation and since there is no effective and meaningful consultation, the notification deserves to be quashed and set aside. in support of the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a full bench decision of this court in pruthvisinh amarsinh chauhan v. k.d. rawat and ors. reported in 2005(4) glr 2932.(c) that as per section 7(2) of the act before a notification regarding the bifurcation of a gram panchayat is issued, the word 'consultation' comes into the picture and the same involves an element of adjudication, and in any adjudication, the principles of natural justice come into play. it is emphasised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by issuing the impugned notification, the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice by not affording an opportunity of hearing to the people at large, who are adversely affected, and on this ground the said notification deserves to be quashed and set aside.(d) that at the initial stage, the respondents had engaged in consultation but subsequently when the notification was issued, there was no fresh consultation. it is submitted that the state government, by communication dated 3-8-2007 annexed as annexure 'b' to the petition, has mentioned in paragraph 1 that if the term of the gram panchayat is over and if elections are to be held in december, 2007, then a resolution indicating consent for the bifurcation of the panchayat is to be sent and, in case the governing body is not agreeable for the bifurcation, even then a resolution to that effect is required to be made. according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the newly-formed governing body of the petitioner no. 1 passed resolution dated 16-8-2007 wherein it was resolved that, for the present, there is no consent to the proposal for the bifurcation of the gram panchayat and that without taking into consideration the fresh resolution of the petitioner-gram panchayat, the respondent no. 1 has straightaway issued the impugned notification, without any fresh consultation.(e) that the bifurcation of the paroya gram panchayat involves civil consequences to the people residing in the villages comprising the said gram panchayat who will suffer adverse consequences due to administrative and geographical reasons and when civil consequences are involved, it is imperative that the affected parties be given an opportunity of hearing, which has not been done in the present case, before issuing the impugned notification.(f) that village rodhra, which has been separated from the petitioner-gram panchayat is backward and undeveloped in comparison to the other villages comprising the said gram panchayat and the revenue income of the said village is also much lesser, making it difficult to run its administration independently. it is further submitted that people at large will not benefit from a bifurcation of the petitioner-gram panchayat and on this ground as well the impugned notification deserves to be quashed and set aside.8. on the above grounds, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition be allowed and the impugned notification dated 4-10-2007 as well as the orders dated 20-10-2007 and 22-10-2007 be quashed and set aside.9. ms. mini m. nair, learned assistant government pleader for the respondents nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the decision to bifurcate the paroya gram panchayat into two gram panchayats by separating village rodhra and village rodhra chhapara (petapara) is a policy decision of the government, which has been arrived at after proper consultation and after considering the geographical and administrative conditions prevailing in the area. the learned assistant government pleader has submitted that the decision has been taken after proper consultation, as envisaged by section 7(2) of the act, and this fact is evident from the documents on record. it is submitted that the petitioner-gram panchayat has passed resolution no. 5 dated 27-3-2006, as well as resolution no. 4 dated 31-3-2006, whereby it has been resolved to separate village rodhra from paroya gram panchayat due to geographical and administrative reasons. taking into consideration the above resolutions of the petitioner-gram panchayat, the taluka panchayat, khedbrahma has passed resolution no. 6 dated 4-9-2006 consenting to the bifurcation of the paroya gram panchayat and, thereafter the district panchayat, sabarkantha has also passed resolution no. 230 dated 27-10-2006 to the same effect and made a similar request to the state government. it is submitted by the learned assistant government pleader that the documents on record clearly show that there has been consultation at every level as envisaged by the provisions of section 7(2) of the act. moreover, the resolution no. 4/1 dated 16-8-2007 whereby the majority has resolved that, for the time being, no consent is given for the proposal of bifurcation does not contain any reasons for deferring the proposal for bifurcation. it is emphasised by the learned assistant government pleader that the petitioner-gram panchayat has expressed no objection in principle to the bifurcation of the panchayat but has only resolved that, for the time being, consent to the proposal of the bifurcation has not been given. it is further submitted that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice and the bifurcation of the petitioner-gram panchayat will not entail any adverse consequences and, therefore, the question of civil consequences being inflicted upon the people at large will not arise. regarding the necessity of fresh consultation, it is submitted by the learned assistant government pleader that as per letter dated 3-8-2007, the newly- formed body of the panchayat has been consulted and it is only after consultation that the resolution no. 4/1 dated 16-8-2007, whereby the majority has resolved to withhold the consent, for the time being, has been passed. ms. mini m. nair,learned assistant government pleader has clarified that earlier by resolutions dated 27-3-2006 and 31-3-2006 the petitioners had consented to the bifurcation of the panchayat and only after the formation of the new body was the subsequent resolution no. 4/1 dated 16-8-2007 passed, which clearly goes to show that the same has been passed in order to keep intact the term of office of the present office bearers. it has been strongly argued by the learned assistant government pleader that the decision to bifurcate the petitioner-gram panchayat is a policy decision of the state government, which has been taken in the interest of the people at large. denying the allegations of political motivation, the learned assistant government pleader has submitted that the elections to the legislative assembly took place in december 2007 whereas the resolutions for the bifurcation of the gram panchayat were initially sent on 27-3-2006 and 31-3-2006 and since these resolutions have no connection with the elections to the legislative assembly, the impugned notification cannot be said to be politically motivated or malafide. in support of this contention, the learned assistant government pleader has placed reliance upon federation of railway officers association v. union of india reported in : [2003]2scr1085 . ms. mini m. nair,learned assistant government pleader has emphasised that the provisions of section 7(2) of the act have been complied with by engaging in effective and meaningful consultation with the concerned taluka panchayat, district panchayat and the petitioner-gram panchayat before passing the impugned resolution. moreover, the inquiry as contemplated under the provisions of section 7(1) of the act has also been undertaken and the requirements of law have been met with before issuing the notification dated 4-10-2007, which does not suffer from any legal infirmity and, therefore, the petition may be dismissed.10. mr. manish j. patel, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the documents on record reveal that the proceedings for the bifurcation of the petitioner-gram panchayat was going on from the year 2002 at various levels. it is further submitted that paroya gram panchayat had passed resolution no. 5 dated 27-3-2006 and resolution no. 4 dated 31-3-2006, which was submitted to the taluka panchayat which, thereafter passed resolution no. 6 dated 4-9-2006 for the bifurcation of the said gram panchayat and it is only after following the necessary procedure that the district panchayat, sabarkantha has passed resolution no. 230 dated 27-10-2006 for bifurcation of the petitioner-gram panchayat and forwarded a request in this regard to the state government. it is submitted by mr. patel that the subsequent resolution no. 4/1 dated 16-8-2007 whereby it has been resolved to withhold the consent to the proposal for bifurcation, for the time being, has been passed by the new body only with a view to completing its term of office. no reason has been stated in the resolution, as to why the gram panchayat should not be bifurcated and, in principle, there is no objection to the proposal of bifurcation, as such. according to mr. manish j. patel, there has been proper and effective consultation as far as the concerned gram panchayat, taluka panchayat and district panchayat are concerned and the impugned notification has been issued after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.11. no other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the respective parties.12. i have heard ms. sneha a. joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, ms. mini m. nair,learned assistant government for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and mr. manish j. patel, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, at length and in great detail, and have gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed thereto.13. before i decide the issues that arise for consideration in this petition, it would be fruitful to refer to the provisions of section 7 of the act, which are reproduced hereinbelow:7. recommendation specification of village:- 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 fifteen 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 village any local area or otherwise alteration 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 constitution.the relevant provision in this regard is sub-section (2) of section 7 which envisages, `consultation' with the taluka panchayat, district panchayat and the concerned village panchayat by the competent authority, who may, at any time after such consultation, recommend the inclusion or exclusion from any village, any local area or alteration of the limits of any village, to the governor, for exercise of powers under clause (g) of article 243 of the constitution of india. in other words, after making an inquiry, as prescribed under section 7(1) and after consultation, as envisaged in section 7(2) of the act, the competent authority may recommend the bifurcation, namely inclusion or exclusion of any village or local area, as prescribed in sub-section (2) to the governor, and, consequently, a notification to that effect, may be issued under the provisions of section 7 of the act. 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. 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. 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 4.10.2007.16. the undisputed facts of the case are that on 27-3-2006 and 31-3-2006 the petitioner-gram panchayat passed resolution no. 5 and resolution no. 4 respectively, to the effect that village rodhra should be bifurcated from paroya group gram panchayat for geographical and administrative reasons, especially for the reason that river gosambi was passing between villages paroya and rodhra, making travel and transportation to and fro difficult, for the people of the area. acting upon the above two resolutions, the taluka panchayat and the district panchayat, after making necessary inquiries, submitted the requisite proposal to the state government for bifurcation of the petitioner-gram panchayat, which ultimately culminated in the issuance of notification dated 4-10-2007.17. the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the impugned notification has been issued as a political gimmick in order to woo the rich and influential persons of the area before the impending elections to the legislative assembly, cannot be accepted, for the reason that initially the proposal for bifurcation emanated from the petitioner-gram panchayat itself, by way of resolutions dated 27-3-2006 and 31-3-2006 respectively. the elections to the legislative assembly took place only in december 2007 and, therefore, there is no connection or nexus between the two. even otherwise, the allegations of political malafide are not supported by any material on record and, therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is merely stated to be rejected. moreover, after the earlier resolutions dated 27-3-2006 and 31-3-2006, there is no change in circumstances till the passing of the subsequent resolution dated 16-8-2007 whereby it is stated that for the time being, consent for bifurcation has been withheld.18. regarding the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that there has been no consultation before passing the impugned notification, it is evident that the subsequent resolution no. 4(1) dated 16-8-2007, whereby the majority has resolved that, for the time being consent for bifurcation of the petitioner-gram panchayat is being withheld, is clearly an after thought since it has been passed by the newly-formed body. the record reveals that pursuant to the earlier resolutions dated 27-3-2006 and 31-3-2006, the taluka panchayat and the district panchayat have passed resolutions dated 4-9-2006 and 27-10-2006 respectively consenting to the bifurcation of the petitioner-gram panchayat and it is only after following the necessary procedure, as envisaged in the statute and after conducting the necessary inquiry that the proposal for bifurcation of the petitioner-gram panchayat was sent to the state government, resulting in the issuance of notification dated 4-10-2007. a perusal of the documents on record reveals that there has been effective, meaningful and genuine consultation, as held to be necessary by the full bench in pruthvisinh amarsinh chauhan v. k.d. rawat and ors. (supra). the record discloses that the procedure envisaged in section 7 of the act has been meticulously followed by the respondents and the requirement of effective and meaningful consultation, in terms of section 7(2) of the act, has been fulfilled before issuing the impugned notification. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been no effective and meaningful consultation cannot, therefore, be accepted.19. the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding violation of the principles of natural justice are also without substance. it is relevant to notice the fact that the resolution for bifurcation was sent by the petitioner-gram panchayat as far back as on 27-3-2006 and 31-3-2006 and, acting upon the same, the proposal for bifurcation has been processed at the levels of the taluka panchayat and district panchayat. the earlier resolutions of the petitioner-gram panchayat are based on the representations of the people at large, who were facing difficulties due to the geographical conditions prevailing in the area and due to lack of proper transportation facilities. in the light of this position, it cannot be said that the people at large were not given an opportunity of being heard. further, it is relevant to notice that the provisions of section 7(2) of the act do not contemplate an individual opportunity of hearing. what is contemplated is only 'consultation', which has effectively taken place, as is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the documents on the record. the statute does not contemplate, a personal hearing to all the objectors who may file representation. even otherwise, the gram panchayat has itself by the earlier resolutions consented to the bifurcation and merely because by a subsequent resolution dated 16-8-2007, the majority has withheld the consent for bifurcation, for the time being, does not indicate that there is any change of circumstances, necessitating abandoning of the proposal for bifurcation. a perusal of the resolution dated 16-8-2007 whereby, the petitioner-gram panchayat, by majority has withheld the consent to the proposal of bifurcation, for the time being, makes it clear that the earlier stand of the petitioner -gram panchayat has been changed by the new governing body, ostensibly with the purpose of allowing the elected representatives to complete their term. there is no objection, in principle, to the proposal of bifurcation. the resolution dated 16-8-2007 does not contain a single reason why the bifurcation should not take place, giving rise to the inescapable conclusion that the withholding of the consent for bifurcation, for the time being as stated therein, is merely to protect the personal interests of the elected body and allow it to complete its term in office.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.21. there is sufficient material on record to show that while issuing the notification for the bifurcation of the petitioner-gram panchayat, the state government has taken into consideration all relevant factors, such as the geographical location, revenue, population and other related factors and the decision to bifurcate the gram panchayat has been taken in the interest of the public at large. this decision is in the nature of a policy decision of the state government. as held in federation of railway officers association and ors. v. union of india (supra), the scope of judicial review in matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise is limited;judicial review of a policy evolved by the government is limited. when policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. on matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise the court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of power, the court will not interfere in such matters.22. in the case in hand, the policy decision to bifurcate the petitioner-gram panchayat by issuing the impugned notification has been arrived at after taking into consideration all relevant factors and ground realities, and does not violate any legal or constitutional provisions. there is no material on record to show that the decision is arbitrary, irrational or perverse. this court, therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india will not interfere with such a policy decision, especially when it meets with the requirements of law.23. the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the revenue and population of village rodhra is lesser than that of the other villages comprising paroya gram panchayat and that the newly formed gram panchayat will find it difficult to run its administration, is also not worthy of acceptance. it is not in dispute that the newly-formed gram panchayat will be given various grants and exemptions in order to run its administration. such matters of a financial and administrative nature are to be looked into by the competent authorities in this regard and it is not for this court, or for the petitioners to decide how, and in what manner, the financial and administrative matters of the gram panchayat are to be handled. there is nothing on record to show that the decision to bifurcate the petitioner-gram panchayat has not been taken in the larger public interest. in fact, the subsequent resolution of the petitioner-gram panchayat, stating that the consent for bifurcation of the said gram panchayat is being withheld for the time being, gives rise to the inescapable conclusion that the same has been passed to serve the personal interest of the office bearers and not for concerns of the public at large.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.25. in view of the principles of law laid down by the full bench in pruthvisinh amarsinh chauhan v. k.d.rawat and ors. (supra), and in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed hereinabove, and in the ultimate analysis, i am of the considered opinion that the notification dated 4-10-2007, whereby the petitioner-gram panchayat has been bifurcated, suffers from no legal infirmity. consequently, the orders dated 20-10-2007 and 22-10-2007 whereby an administrator has been appointed for the newly-formed gram panchayat are also legal and valid.26. as a result of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition fails. it is, accordingly dismissed. the order of status quo, granted during the pendency of the petition, will cease to operate. notice is discharged and there shall be no orders as to costs.27. at this stage, ms. sneha a. joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has prayed that the operation of this judgment be stayed for a period of two weeks. the prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.in view of the factual and legal position detailed hereinabove, this request of the learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected.