P.K. Goswami, J. - (1.)THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the Petitioner, who is the Resident of the Bahari Gaon Panchayat, and is directed against two orders of the State Government, each dated 12th March,' 1968, passed under Section 3 (1) and (2) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1959 (Assam Act XXIV of 1959), hereinafter called 'the Act.
(2.)THE Petitioner's case is that the Government of Assam by a notification dated 2nd March, 1960 declared the area consisting of the villages Bahari, Nij -Bahari and Kal -tali, to be the area of the Bahari Gaon Sabha under Section 3(1) of the Act, and accordingly the Bahari Gaon Panchayat was duly elected and constituted and has been functioning according to law. He states that the territorial jurisdiction of the Bahari Gaon Sabha covers an area of about 3968 Bighas and its population exceeds five thousand. He further states that Bahari Grazing Re serve is an integral part of the Bahari village and, is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bahari Gaon Sabha as already notified in 1960. The Government of Assam by a notification dated 12th March 1968 carved out about 239 Big has of the Bahari Grazing. Reserve, since de -reserved for the purpose of a Bazar, from the existing territorial jurisdiction of the Bahari Gaon Sabha and reconstituted a new Gaon Sabha for this area The Petitioner claims that the said reconstitution is in violation of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and Rule 88 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) (Amendment) Rules, 1964, hereinafter called the Rules. He submits that the procedure laid down under Rule 88 has not been followed in reconstituting the Gaon Sabha, and, as such, the orders of the Government are illegal and inoperative in law.
In the counter affidavit by the Government it is claimed that the Government was satisfied on public demand and in the interest of general public that there should be a separate Gaon Sabha for the rehabilitated area and, as such in exercise of its powers under Section 3 (1) and (2) of the Act, it constituted a new Gaon Sabha. It is claimed that the grazing reserve was de -reserved and people from a neighboring village Tarabari, which was eroded away by the Brahmaputra, had to be rehabilitated in this de -reserved area and the Government thought it fit to constitute the same as a new Gaon Sabha.

(3.)THE non -applicants Nos. 8 to 12, who were not originally impleaded in this proceeding, intervened and as they are members or the new Gaon Sabha which has been constituted under the impugned notifications and have already taken their oath of office on 27th May, 1968, as required under the law, they have been allowed to be added as parties under orders of this Court. These non -applicants bring out certain revealing things in their affidavit. They state that resolutions were passed on 29th December, 1968 in the meeting of the Bahari Gaon Panchayat under the President ship of the present Petitioner for the establishment of two Gaon Sabhas out of the area of the present Gaon Sabha, one for the population of the Bahari Grazing Reserve and the other for the remaining area of the existing Bahari Gaon Sabha and that resolutions were also passed by the Chenga Anchalik Panchayat and Barpeta Mahkuma Parishad approving of the above demand of Bahari Gaon Sabha situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid Anchalik Panchayat and Mahkuma Parishad. Further, the Petitioner as the President of the Bahari Gaon Panchayat sent letter dated 30 -12 -63 to the Director of Panchayat, Assam, in forming about the above resolutions which have been filed as Annexures I and II to their counter affidavit. They, therefore, deny that the reconstitution of the new Gaon Sabha by the impugned notification was against the will and the opposition of the Gaon Panchayat and the villagers in general. It is sufficient to state that there is no replication by the Petitioner to this part of the affidavit by the non -applicants.
;