Judgment :- K.A.Swami, CJ. This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 3. 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3556 of 1993. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner in the writ petition has come up in appeal. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for a declaration that the respondents are not entitled to enhance the local cess and local cess surcharge under Secs. 115 and 116 respectively of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1958, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1992, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) without being preceded by a resolution of a duly elected Panchayat Union Council constituted under the Act. 3. It is not in dispute that during the period when the local cess and local cess surcharge were enhanced, the elected Panchayat Union Council was not functioning. In exercise of the power vested under Sec.155 of the Act, the Panchayat Union Council was dissolved by the State Government. An officer of the Government, not below the rank of Tahsildar, was appointed to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Panchayat Union Council and of its Chairman. It is during this period, the Inspector has enhanced the local cess and also the local cess surcharge. Learned single Judge has taken a view that as it is open to the officer appointed under Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.155 of the Act to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Panchayat Union Council and also of its Chairman, he could also exercise the power underSecs.115 and 116 of the Act and enhance the local cess and also the local cess surcharge. 4. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant has not made any grievance about the power of the officer appointed under Sec.l55(4) of the Act to enhance the local cess as, according to him, Sec.115 empowers the officer appointed under Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.155 of the Act to exercise such power. The only grievance made before us is that during the interregnum from the date of dissolution of Panchayat Union Council and until the Panchayat Union Council is elected, the officer appointed under Sec. 155 (4) of the Act has no power to enhance the local cess surcharge. The only grievance made before us is that during the interregnum from the date of dissolution of Panchayat Union Council and until the Panchayat Union Council is elected, the officer appointed under Sec. 155 (4) of the Act has no power to enhance the local cess surcharge. Elaborating this contention, learned counsel points out that the expression used in Sec. 116 is ‘may’ and the Rules framed under the Act as to imposition of tax on agricultural land, as incorporated in the Schedule to the Rules framed under the Act, a resolution is required to be passed by the Panchayat Union Council in a meeting specially convened for that purpose and supported by not less than one half of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat specifying the purpose for which, the rate at which and the period for which the tax is to be levied. Hence, it is submitted thatas the Panchayat Union Council is not in existence, as it is dissolved by the State Government under Sec.155(1) of the Act, Rule 2 of the Rules relating to tax on agricultural land cannot at all be complied with. Therefore, the officer appointed under Sec.155(4) of the Act has had no authority to enhance the local cess surcharge. 5. We are of the view that these two contentions cannot be accepted. Firstly, it is relevant to notice that Sec.155(4) of the Act specifically empowers the Inspector to appoint an officer under Sec. 155(4) of the Act, not below the rank of Tahsildar. Such officer is, as per Sub-sec. (4) of Sec.155 of the Act, empowered to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Panchayat Union Council. Sec.155(4) of the Act reads thus: “During the interval between the dissolution and the reconstitution of a Panchayat union council, the Inspector may appoint a person to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Panchayat Union Council and of its chairman.” The rule is unambiguous. It is very clearly worded. In specific terms it empowers such officer to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Panchayat Union Council and of its Chairman. It is very clearly worded. In specific terms it empowers such officer to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Panchayat Union Council and of its Chairman. No doubt, Rule 2 of the Rules relating to tax on agricultural land incorporated in the Schedule to the Rules relating to assessment and collection of taxes states that every proposal for the levy of the tax shall be submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer through the Panchayat Extension Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall forward it to the sanctioning authority. The rule further states that every proposal shall be accompanied by a resolution of the panchayat passed at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and supported by not less than one half of the sanctioned strength of the panchayat specifying the purpose for which, the rate at which, and the period for which the tax is to be levied, and a statement showing the receipts and charges under the various heads of account for the three years preceding the year in which the proposal is made. The remaining portion of the rule is not relevant for our purpose. Rule 2 relating to taxon agricultural land and Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.155 of the Act have to be read harmoniously. An interpretation which advances the object of the statute must normally be preferred. Here the object of Sec. 155(4) of the Act is to ensure that even in the absence of an elected Panchayat Union Council the powers and, functions or duties of the Panchayat Union Council are performed and discharged by the officer appointed under Sec.l55(4) of the Act. With this object in view, the statute says that the officer appointed under Sec.l55(4) can exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Panchayat. Thus, for all purpose he is the Panchayat Union Council. When such officer passes an order or a resolution enhancing local cess or local cess surcharge, in law it must be taken that the whole Panchayat has passed such a resolution. That being so, it is not possible to hold that the officer appointed under Sec.155(4)of the Act is not in a position to comply with Rule 2 of the Rules relating to tax on agricultural land and as such he is incompetent to levy or enhance local cess surcharge. 6. That being so, it is not possible to hold that the officer appointed under Sec.155(4)of the Act is not in a position to comply with Rule 2 of the Rules relating to tax on agricultural land and as such he is incompetent to levy or enhance local cess surcharge. 6. It is the submission made by learned counsel that as far as local cess is concerned, the officer is competent to increase it. This goes to support the view we have taken above in respect of local cess surcharge because increase of local cess has also to be done by the Panchayat Union Council. Learned counsel submits that as Sec.115 uses the expression ‘shall’, the officer appointed under Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.155 of the Act is entitled to increase the local cess. What applies to exercise of power by the officer under Sec.115 of the Act equally applies in respect of exercise of power by him under Sec. 116 of the Act. In both the cases, it is the Panchayat Union Council that has to exercise the power and the officer having been appointed in place of the Panchayat Union Council to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Panchayat Union Council can exercise all the powers of the Panchayat and as such he can enhance the local cess and local cess surcharge. 7. The further submission of learned counsel is that the expression ‘may’ used in Sec. 116 of the Act makes all the difference, because it is open to the Panchayat Union Council to enhance or not to enhance. Learned counsel submits that as there is a discretion vested in the Panchayat Union Council and such discretion can be exercised only when there is an elected Panchayat Union Council in office, the officer appointed under Sec.l55(4) of the Act is not expected to exercise the discretion which an elected council is expected to exercise. This submission overlooks the very provisions contained in Sec. 155(4) of the Act, which as already pointed out empowers the officer to exercise all the powers of the Panchayat and discharge all the duties of the Panchayat Union Council and of its Chairman. This submission overlooks the very provisions contained in Sec. 155(4) of the Act, which as already pointed out empowers the officer to exercise all the powers of the Panchayat and discharge all the duties of the Panchayat Union Council and of its Chairman. In this regard, it may also be remembered that it is one of the cardinal rules of interpretation that while interpreting a statute care should be taken to ensure as far as possible that no word or a part of a statute is rendered otiose. Thus it follows that it is not possible to accept the interpretation put forth by learned counsel on Sec. 155(4) of the Act and Rule 2 of the Rules referred to above. Hence, it is rejected. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the view taken by the learned single Judge is correct. We see no ground to admit the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.