JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Likma 1 Desar, Tehsil Dongarhgarh, District Bikaner in the year 2000 while election petition was pending challenging his election, on a complaint lodged by respondent No. 5 that the appellant petitioner was disqualified to contest the election because he has more than two children at the time when he contested election and the third child was born after 27.11.1995 the cut off Date, after which a child born to a candidate which would make number of children more than two, disqualified him. 2. On appointment of an Enquiry Officer to enquire into said Disqualification, a writ petition was filed by the present appellant before this court as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4342/2000 challenging the holding of enquiry into pre-election disqualification to be without jurisdiction and against Constitutional scheme. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition holding such inquiry permissible. 4. Thereafter, the Commissioner, who was exercising power under section 39(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, dropped the proceedings after receiving the preliminary report against the petitioner inter alia on the ground that since is qualification recorded to the period to election, it cannot be inquired into i/S. 39(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, following the decision of a learned 20 Single Judge of this Court in Jagram v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., 001(3) RLR 268 . This order was made on 22.11.2001. The complainant filed i review petition pointing out that the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 674/2001 and D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 530/2001 decided on 22.11.2001 has held that such an enquiry is permissible under the Act of 1994. The Commissioner while taking notice of the fact that it is no more in dispute that holding of an enquiry under section 39 in respect of disqualification incurred prior to election is permissible, but he did not have any power to review his own earlier order. Therefore, the review application was rejected on 9.5.2001. 5. This rejection led to filing of the writ petition out of which present appeal arises. 6. The writ petition filed by respondent No. 5 was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment under appeal dated 9.1.2003. Therefore, the review application was rejected on 9.5.2001. 5. This rejection led to filing of the writ petition out of which present appeal arises. 6. The writ petition filed by respondent No. 5 was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment under appeal dated 9.1.2003. The learned Single Judge apart from finding that the view expressed by him in earlier occasion has since been reiterated by the Division Bench further found that when this Court has directed to continue with the enquiry, the Commissioner could not have dropped the proceedings by holding contrary ) what has been held in the appellant's own case which binds the parties. was, therefore, directed to continue with the enquiry. 7. It is in these circumstances, this appeal has been filed by the appellant the elected Sarpanch. He has also moved an application raising additional grounds about the constitutional validity of clause (vii) of Section 2 of the Act of 1994 inter alia on the ground that designating of the competent authority to take action in respect of any disqualification incurred by elected person or incurred by an elected person has to be designated by present legislation and it cannot be left to the subordinate legislation to name the competent authority. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant about which there is no dispute that the number of writ petitions raising the same issue are pending before this Court. 8. So far as the question that Section 39(2) is a valid legislation and is not contrary to the constitutional scheme about the manner in which an elected person can be removed, is no more in doubt. In a recent Bench Decision of this Court, the constitutional validity of Section 39(2) has been upheld in Bheru Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2003(2) CDR 1699 (Raj.) decided on 29.4.2003. 9. However, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that since passing of the order by learned Single Judge, the Divisional Commissioner has passed the order by which he has directed the Medical Board to hold an enquiry into the alleged disqualification attached with the appellant and further directing that in case finding is against the appellant, he may be declared disqualified and if the finding is in favour of the elected Sarpanch, the proceedings may be dropped. Both the learned counsel further stated that the said order is under challenge by the appellant as well as by the respondents in two separate writ petitions filed by the respective parties. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant has raised the very same issue about the constitutional validity of the Divisional Commissioner to continue with the enquiry in the said writ petition which is pending before this Court and it would be multiplicity of writ petitions if the appellant is allowed to continue this appeal. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the appellant be permitted to prosecute his remedy against the by the Divisional Commissioner with liberty to raise all the grounds available with him including the lack of inherent jurisdiction in the legislature, on the ground that authority to name competent authority cannot be delegated by legislation to somebody else as it amounts to abduction of legislative function. Reserving this liberty to the appellant amply safeguards his interest and no useful purpose shall be served to continue with this appeal, solely for the purpose of raising the question of validity of legislative competence to enact Section 2(vii) of the Act of 1996. 11. Accordingly, subject to aforesaid observations, the appeal stands as disposed of, No order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed Subject to Observations as Made Above. *******