In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners are residents of six villages in Medak District, which are surrounding Siddipeta Municipality. Petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.13 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.IV) Department, dated 21.01.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.28 Municipality Administration and Urban Development (Elec.I) Department, dated 21.01.2012 (In W.P.No.2558 of 2012, only G.O.Ms.No.28 Municipality Administration and Urban Development (Elect.1) Department, dated 21.01.2012 is challenged). By the aforesaid orders, the Government notified six villages surrounding Siddipet Municipality to merge into Siddipet Municipality. The villages notified are 1)Rangadhampally 2)Imamabad, 3)Narsapur, 4)Gadcherlapally, 5) Prashanthnagar and 6) Hanumannagar.

2. The facts in brief which are necessary for consideration of the issue involved in these writ petitions are as under:

3. The Commissioner, Siddipet Municipality issued Notice dated 03.08.2011 stating that six villages mentioned in the notice are proposed to be included in Siddipet Municipality and called for views/objections/suggestions. This notice is based on the decision stated to have been taken by the Government to merge the six Grampanchayats in Siddipet Municipality. Petitioners submitted objections in response to the said notice. Several other persons have also submitted objections. Petitioners averred that without considering the objections filed by the petitioners, impugned orders are passed merging the villages of the petitioners into Siddipet Municipality.

4. Heard Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions and learned Government Pleader for the Municipal Administration and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department.

5. Elaborate submissions are made by the learned counsel for the petitioners pointing out several illegalities in the process, resulting in issuing the impugned Government Orders. Learned counsel pointed out that there is clear violation of mandate in Section 3 of Act 1994 read with Rule 12(2) of Rules 2007 in de-notifying the petitioners villages from the purview of Act, 1994. Learned counsel also made elaborate submissions on violation of provisions of Acts, 1965 and 1994 and the Rules made there under in determining the distance between the Municipality and the petitioners villages before merging the villages. He further contends that the six villages are chosen in a pick and choose method by arbitrary exercise of power, while excluding other villages which are more close to the Siddipet town. Learned counsel also contended that there was total non-application of mind and mechanical determination of issue violating spirit of Panchayat Raj Act and the constitutional mandate. He further contends that the objections filed by the petitioners were not even considered and no reasons are assigned. The objections are not considered by the competent authority as required by law. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that there is total violation of statutory mandate and, therefore, the orders impugned are not sustainable.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Curt in the cases of Babu Verghese and others Vs. Bar Council of Kerala and others ((1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 422),J&K Housing Board and another Vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul and others ((2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 714), M/s. Kamal Trading Private Limited (now Known as Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) Vs. State of West Bengal & Others (2011(13) Scale 511), Ipurupalem Gram Panchayat rep.by its Sarpanch Akrathi Ranganayakulu and others Vs. State of A.P., & others (1971 (1) APLJ? 18 (SN)), Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh alias Chhotu Singh (2009(6) SCC 681), Rajahmundry (Rural) Mandal Praja Parishad, rep.by its President Menda Somayya Vs. The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Housing Municipal Administration & Urban Develop