Judgment

( 1 ) ISSUE notice.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent State appears and takes notice.

( 3 )

( 4 ) THE limited plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us is that the High Court has dismissed the writ petition on factually wrong premises. What the petitioners in the High Court were seeking was reorganisation of panchayats as contemplated by Section 11-F of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and not any relief regarding delimitation of territorial constituencies for election of members as mentioned in Section 12 (l) (d) of the Act, though it may be a consequence. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of U. P. submits that the elections are about to be notified and the present petition, if entertained, may from the Judgment and Order dated 27-5-2005 in WP No. 2396 of 2005 (M/b) of the High court of Allahabad Bench at Lucknow interfere with the election process. We do not propose to express any opinion thereon except recording the statement made by Shri Dwivedi.

( 5 ) AS we are satisfied after hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the government order dated 18-5-2005 which deals with delimitation of the seats of gram sadasyas (members of the Gram Panchayat) does not satisfy the grievance raised by the petitioners, the petitioners are allowed the liberty of moving the High Court highlighting their grievance and seeking rehearing of their writ petition from the High Court.

( 6 ) IN view of that course being available to the petitioners, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and the same be treated as disposed of.