( 1 ) LEAVE to delete respondent No. 3 in both the petitions in view of the oral request made by Mr Vahkharia. Rule. Mr HC Patel, learned AGP waives service of Rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

( 2 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 3503 of 2002 is filed by two elected members of Vaghdod taluka panchayat. At the hearing, the petitioners also claim through their learned counsel Mr MK Vakharia that the petition is filed on behalf of 12 other elected members of Vaghdod taluka panchayat. Special Civil Application No. 3508 of 2002 is filed by the Patan taluka panchayat and its President.

( 3 ) PRIOR to October, 1997, there was one unified taluka known as Patan taluka. By notification dated 15. 10. 1997 Patan taluka was bifurcated into Patan taluka and Vaghdod taluka. Pursuant to the notifications issued under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, separate taluka panchayats were established for Patan taluka and for Vaghdod taluka. Elections to the Vaghdod taluka panchayat were held in September, 2000 and its first meeting was held on 5. 10. 2000. Elections to the Patan taluka panchayat were held in October 2000 and its first meeting was held on 12. 10. 2000. Annexure "a" of the petitions is the declaration of results of the respective talukas. Recently, by notification dated 3. 7. 2001 under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the State Government has included Vaghdod taluka into Patan taluka. The said notification is at Annexure "b" to each petition.

( 4 ) IN the present petitions, it is contended that pursuant to the aforesaid notification dated 3. 7. 2001, the State Government is required to issue consequential notifications under Section 264 (a) (i) and (iii) and also Section 264 (2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Panchayats Act" or "the Act" ). The petitioners apprehend that the State Government will not discharge the statutory duties in view of the fact that the majority of the members of Vaghdod taluka panchayat as well as the majority of the members of Patan taluka panchayat belong to a party other the party ruling in the State.

( 5 ) IN response to the notice issued by this Court in these petitions, Mr HC Patel, learned AGP appears for the respondents, State of Gujarat and the Development Commissioner and submits that since no order adverse to the petitioners is passed, the petitions are not maintainable. Mr Patel further submits that the State Government does have the power to dissolve the taluka panchayats if exigencies so demand and that the petitioners do not have any right to demand that the State Government be directed to exercise one power or the another.

( 6 ) BEFORE dealing with the rival submissions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Panchayats Act in so far as the same are relevant for the purpose of the present petitions. Section 7 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 empowers the State Government to alter the revenue limits of the villages, talukas and districts. Chapter II of the Panchayats Act provides for establishment of panchayats and their area of jurisdiction. Section 13 of the Act provides for duration of panchayats and their reconstitution. Sub-section (1), which is relevant, reads as under :-"13. Duration of panchayats and their reconstitution.- (1) every panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under this Act shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. "this Section is obviously based on the provisions of Article 243e of the Constitution relevant portion of which reads as under :-"243e. DURATION of Panchayats, etc.- (1) Every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. (2) no amendment of any law for the time being in force shall have the effect of causing dissolution of a Panchayat at any level, which is functioning immediately before such amendment, till the expiration of its