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 âSAâý to the petition) issued by the respondent No.1 in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (âSthe Actâý 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 âSCâý 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