JUDGMENT M. G. GAIKW AD, J. :- Heard learned counsel, appearing for the respective parties in both writ petitions. 2-3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of learned sel, appearing for respective parties, both these petitions are heard finally decided. 4. These two writ petitions are decided by this common judgment as on question of law as to "whether a delegatee can sub-delegate his powers to other authority" arises in these matters. 5. By preferring Writ Petition No. 4923/2006, the petitioner seeks relief to h and set aside the order dated 30-5-2006 passed by the Collector, Argungabad delegating the powers of hearing to the Sub-Divisional Officer, angabad, as well as to quash and set aside the order dated 19-6-2006 passed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner. In Writ Petition No. 5138/2006, the petitioner challenged the order dated 2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Selu, District Parbhani, rejecting objections filed by the petitioner and claims a relief to quash and set aside the same. 6. The factual aspects in both these petitions are summarized as under. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4923/2006 is an elected Councillor of Municipal Council, Paithan. Municipal Council, Paithan is a "c" class Municipal Council. The General Elections of the said Council are due in the month of ember, 2006. The State Election Commission, on 3-5-2005, published notification, exercising the powers conferred on it under Article 243-ZA of the institution of India, delegating his powers to the District Collectors in the State Maharashtra for preparation of drafts of wards of the Municipal Councils in State of Maharashtra, as per provisions of sections 5, 10 and 10A(4) of the arashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships t, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Under clause (9) of the said notification, it was declared that for "c" class Municipal Councils, the Collector the Officers authorized by him were empowered to hear objections for institution of the wards and after hearing the said objections, further powers re vested to the Divisional Commissioners to publish the notification/s about e wards constituted. By another Notification dated 12-5-2006, the Collector called objections from the citizens in relation to the constitution of wards and the reservation thereof for various categories of the citizens. By another Notification dated 12-5-2006, the Collector called objections from the citizens in relation to the constitution of wards and the reservation thereof for various categories of the citizens. In pursuance said notification, the petitioner filed his objections on 19-5-2006 bet Collector and raised certain objections for reservation of various wards main objection was that the geological conditions as well as population were not considered while constituting different wards and reserving the s different categories. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, by his order 19-6-2006, rejected the said objections and submitted his final notification Divisional Commissioner. These objections were alleged to have been h the Sub-Divisional Officer by the order of the Collector dated 30-5-2006. Feeling aggrieved with the rejection of objections, petitioner pr present writ petition and claimed relief to quash the order passed Collector, delegating his powers to the Sub-sub-divisional Officer as well orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 5138/2006, while challenging the of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Selu, dated 1-6-2006, came with a case the No. 14 of Pathri Municipal Council is reserved for Scheduled Tribes thought is no population of that tribe in the said ward. This objection was raised petitioner before the Collector; however; the Collector, who was empower the State Election Commission, instead of personally hearing those object delegated his powers to the Sub Divisional Officer, Selu. The Sub-Diy Officer, Selu rejected the objections illegally without consideration genealogical conditions of the ward as well as without following population while reserving the ward. 7. On behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 in both writ petitions, affidavit-in - reply is filed supporting the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioners submission the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer by filing objection petitioners participated in the hearing. Petitioner, therefore, cannot challenge the after hearing. Another contention raised is that the notification issued Election Commissioner for formation of wards of Municipal Councils date 2005 clearly shows that the powers have been delegated by the State EI Commission to the District Collector and by general order dated 10-5-200 Election Commissioner himself delegated powers to the Sub-Divisional 0 The order passed by the Collector, therefore, is nothing but transmission order of the Election Commissioner. As such, there is no sub-delegation powers by the Collector to the Sub Divisional Officer. As such, there is no sub-delegation powers by the Collector to the Sub Divisional Officer. Hence, the petitioners without any merit and need to be dismissed. 8. On behalf of the petitioners, learned advocates Shri Sapkal and Bayas challenged the impugned orders on the grounds/submissions that the Election Commission exercising his supervision and control for the election delegate his powers and the powers have been delegated to the Coil however, the Collector further sub-delegated his powers to the Sub Division Officer. Further sub-delegation of powers is illegal. Hence, the order pass the Sub-Divisional Officer in formation of constituencies/wards and reserve of the same for different categories is an order without jurisdiction. Hence, needs to be quashed and set aside by allowing these writ petitions. 9. On behalf of the respondents, learned advocate Shri S. T. Shelke submission that the challenge in the present writ petitions are to the of the Election Commission in respect of the elections of the Municipal s. Such action cannot be entertained while exercising the writ petitioners. He also advanced submission that the Commissioner, by exercising general powers under section 10(4) of the Act authorized all Sub Divisional , to hear the objections, and the Collector transmitted this order to the Sub Division Officer. It is thus not a case of delegate sub-delegating his powers to er authority. Hence, both writ petitions are without any merit and needs to dismissed. 10. In view of rival submissions, advanced on behalf of both the sides, the points those arise for consideration are :_ , (a) Whether the State Election Commission delegated his powers to the Sub Divisional Officers to hear the objections for formation of wards? (b) Whether the delegate i.e. the Collector of each District sub-delegated his powers to the Sub-Divisional Officers? and (c) If yes, whether such sub-delegation of powers is permissible? 11. Both the sides relied upon the provisions of section 10 and 10A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships 1965 in support of their respective contentions. Section 10 of the Act deals "division of municipal area into wards and reservation of wards for women, scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes". Section 10A of the Act deals with the powersers of State Election Commissioner and sub-section (1) of section 10A specifies. Section 10 of the Act deals "division of municipal area into wards and reservation of wards for women, scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes". Section 10A of the Act deals with the powersers of State Election Commissioner and sub-section (1) of section 10A specifies. that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of control rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Municipal Councils vest e State Election Commissioner. Sub-section (2) of section 10A empowers State Election Commissioner to, by order, delegate any of his powers and functions to any officer of the Commission, or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of "Deputy Collector or the Chief Officer of a Council. Sub-section (3) of section 10A states that all such officers and the staff appointed by the Commission for preparation of electoral rolls and conduct of elections of Municipal Councils under this Act or the rules shall function under superintendence, direction and control of the State Election Commissioner. These provisions are clear that in the matter of election of Municipal Councils, the superintendence, direction and control over the elections of Municipal Councils are vested in the State Election Commissioner. The State section Commissioner is empowered to delegate any of his powers and sections to the officers of the State Government but not below the rank of deputy Collector. Thus, the delegation of powers by the State Election Commissioner is permissible under these statutory provisions. The State Election Commissioner is empowered to delegate his powers to the Sub-Divisional officer also. None of the petitioners challenged this power of the State Election Commissioner to delegate his powers to the officers not below the rank of the Sub-Divisional Officers. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officers is challenged both the petitions on the ground that the State Election Commissioner did not legate his powers to the Sub Divisional Officers as authorized under sub-section (2) of section 10A of the Act. The action of Sub-Divisional Office tried to be justified on behalf of the respondents stating that the Election Commissioner himself delegated the powers to the Sub Divisional Officers according to respondents, it is not a case of sub-delegation of powers by delegate. 12. The action of Sub-Divisional Office tried to be justified on behalf of the respondents stating that the Election Commissioner himself delegated the powers to the Sub Divisional Officers according to respondents, it is not a case of sub-delegation of powers by delegate. 12. The main question for consideration is as to whether the Divisional Officers while passing the orders acted on the directions of the State Election Commission i.e. whether the powers are delegated to them by the Sub Election Commission, as contended by the respondents or whether it is a case sub-delegation of powers by the Collector to the Sub-Divisional Officers. 13. As stated above, both the sides admitted that the State Election Commissioner can delegate his powers and the challenge is not to the powers the State Election Commissioner. The dispute is as to whether the Commission delegated his powers to the Sub-Divisional Officer. Learned advocates Sapkal and Shri Bayas, appearing on behalf of the petitioners drew our attends to Notification dated 3-5-2005 (Exhibit-B), issued by the State Elections Commission. Exercising its powers under sections 5, 10A(4) of the Act, the Election Commissioner, as per clause (1) of this Notification, delegated powers to the Collector for constitution of the wards and reservation of the s Clause (6) of the Notification clarifies that in relation to "C" class Munipal Councils, the drafts of constitution of the wards and fixing members of Councils, the Collector is required to submit the draft to Division Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner was supposed to give appear for the same. Clause (9) of the Notification empowers the Collector to hear objections. This clause further lays down that the Collector or the officer authorized by him may hear the objections. This Notification is clear that Commissioner has delegated his powers for constitution of the wards to District Collector. The order under challenge passed by the Sub-Division Officer makes reference of letter dated 30-5-2006 whereby the Collector authorized the Deputy Collector to hear the objections. Perusal of the order d 30-5-2006 (Exhibit-D), passed by the Collector, makes it clear that the Divisional Officers of different sub-divisions mentioned in the letter appointed by the Collector to hear the objections. These orders are thus clear the District Collectors to whom the Election Commissioner had delegated polling of hearing the objections, sub-delegated their powers to the Sub-Division Officers. 14. These orders are thus clear the District Collectors to whom the Election Commissioner had delegated polling of hearing the objections, sub-delegated their powers to the Sub-Division Officers. 14. On behalf of the respondents, relying upon the letter dated 10-5-2 issued by the State Election Commissioner, submission is advanced that powers were delegated to the Sub Divisional Officers by the Election Commissioner himself and not by the Collector. Letter dated 10-5-2006 is issue by the Deputy Secretary of the State Election Commission and the same addressed to all the Collectors of the Districts in the State of Maharashtra. By letter, it is informed that the draft notification in respect of constitution of wards is published on 29-1-2006 as per the provisions of the Act. Seven time needs to be given for hearing the objections. The hearing in relation to s objections was supposed to be completed before 17-6-2006. This letter mentions that the objections in relation to the wards pertaining to "C" class Municipal Council can be delegated to the Sub Divisional officers. However, such elections in relation to "A" and "B" classes Municipal Councils need to be the Collector or the Additional Collector. This letter authorized the collectors to sub-delegate their powers to the Sub Divisional Officers. Plain of this letter clarifies that the Commissioner has not delegated his powers to the Sub-Divisional Officers, but letter mentions that the Collector may his powers to the Sub-Divisional Officers. Hence, the documents above make it clear that the State Election Commissioner has not issued by his powers to the Sub Divisional Officers. However, the Notification , by the State Election Commissioner on 3-5-2005 is clear that the Commissioner has delegated the powers to the Collector to hear the objections. dated 10-5-2006 mentions that the Collector may sub-delegate these, these Powers to the Sub-Divisional Officers, but the Commissioner has not delegated were to the Sub-Divisional Officers directly. 15. As referred to above, the various orders make it clear that the powers of hearing of objections for the constitution of the wards have been delegated by the Election Commissioner to the Collectors and the powers have not been gated to the Sub Divisional Officers though letter dated 10-5-2006 mentions the Collector may empower the Sub-Divisional Officers to take hearing of elections. The order dated 30-5-2006 (Exhibit-D) in Writ Petition No. 312006 and the order dated 25-5-2006 passed by the Collector, Parbhani make clear that they have delegated their powers to respective Sub Divisional officers and there is no order from the State Election Commissioner delegating . powers to the Sub Divisional Officers. 16. Learned advocate Shri S. T. Shelke, appearing on behalf of the State section Commission submitted that the letter dated 10-5-2006 is a general, administrative order, by which the Sub-Divisional Officers are authorized to take hearing. It is not a case of sub-delegation of powers. This submission advanced is without any merit. No doubt, under sub-section (4) of section 10A of the Act, the State Election Commissioner is empowered to issue special or general orders or direction and fair elections. There is no dispute about these powers of the State lection Commission. However, this sub-section (4) itself directs that such general orders or directions should not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. As regards delegation of the powers of hearing, there is specific provision under sub-section (2) of section 10A which empowers to the Collector to ,delegate his powers of hearing of objections to the officers of the State Government not below the rank of the Deputy Collector. In the present matters, those powers have been delegated to the Collector. There was no prohibition on : the Commission to delegate the powers of hearing to the Deputy Collectors as is permissible under sub-section (2) of section 10A of the Act, but the Commission delegated these powers to the Collectors. The Collectors of Districts Aurangabad and Parbhani in the present two matters further delegated their powers of hearing to respective Sub Divisional Officers. Hence, the submission of learned advocate Shri Shelke that by general order, the State Election Commissioner delegated the powers to the Sub Divisional Officers cannot be accepted. 17. Learned advocate Shri Sapkal and Shri Bayas, appearing on the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the Hari Chand Aggarwal vs. The Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 1689 SC 483, wherein the Apex Court held thus.” "The expressions or words which have been used in the notification be read as such and not in any other manner." In that case, the District Magistrates were empowered to act under section the Defence of India Act, 1962. Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 1689 SC 483, wherein the Apex Court held thus.” "The expressions or words which have been used in the notification be read as such and not in any other manner." In that case, the District Magistrates were empowered to act under section the Defence of India Act, 1962. Those powers were alleged to hay delegated to Additional District strates, the Apex Court held that - "When the notification empowers the District Magistrate notification cannot be read to mean that the District Magistrate is Additional District Magistrate." This aspect has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Direction General, E.S.l. and another vs. T. Abdul Razak, etc., reported in AIR 19 2292. In that case, Standing Committee of the Corporation empowered Director General to delegate the powers or duties to him and the Corporation also passed resolution. Relying upon Rule 16(2) of the Employees State Ins (Central) Rules, 1950, it has been held that the Director General was auth to delegate his powers and such powers are held valid. However, the conferment of such powers under resolution of the Corporation are held invalid. In the case of A. K. Roy and another vs. State of Punjab and reported in AIR 1986 SC 2160 , the Apex Court held thus- "The maximum delegatus non potest delegate merely indicates that t not normally allowable but the Legislature can always provide, for delegation of powers." The principle laid down in this case by the Apex Court is that delegate cannot sub-delegate his powers unless same is allowable by a specific provision in the Statute. In the case of State of M.P. vs. Bhupendra Singh, reported in AIR 20 679, the Apex Court held - "The power which has been delegated to the District Magistrate can be exercised by the Additional District Magistrate. Because the powers of granting consent under section 7 of the Explosive Substances 1908 have been delegated by the Central Government to the District Magistrate." . Thus, the ratio in the above referred cases is clear that delegate cannot delegate his powers. The act of the Collectors to authorize the Sub Division Officers to hear the objections amounts to sub-delegation of their powers w powers were delegated to them by the State Election Commissioner. 18. Thus, the ratio in the above referred cases is clear that delegate cannot delegate his powers. The act of the Collectors to authorize the Sub Division Officers to hear the objections amounts to sub-delegation of their powers w powers were delegated to them by the State Election Commissioner. 18. On behalf of the respondents, an attempt is made to justify the action the Sub Divisional Officers and submission is advanced that as the petitioners had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officers and participate in the hearing, they cannot be allowed to challenge the order which is pas against them. In support of this submission, reliance was tried to be placed on decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Chauhan vs. State of M. reported in (2000) 4 SCC 110 and in the case of State of U.P. and others case of Surendra Chauhan, the respondents themselves had preferred ore the Tribunal where the decision was against them and they the constitution of Tribunal to hear the appeal. In view of this fact, the held- he constitution of Tribunal is valid and apart from this fact, the respondents who had preferred appeal before the Tribunal and took part the hearing without raising objection about the competency of the Tribunal, at later stage, they cannot be allowed to raise the said contention. " In the case of State of U. P. vs. Pradhan Singh, Their Lordships of the Apex Court held that in the electoral matters, delimitation of panchayat area or constituencies in said area or to allotment of seats to constituencies in the said election notification was issued cannot and should not be entertained. ratio in these cases is not applicable to the facts of the present cases. Section was raised at the initial stage itself. As per statutory provisions, citizens, objections were called for constitution of wards and it is not a objection was raised after the election notification. It is also not a case that petitioners have submitted their objections before the Sub-Divisional officers. In both the matters, objections have been submitted before the Collector to whom the powers were delegated by the Election Commissioner. However, the collector forwarded the same for hearing to the Sub Divisional Officers, by subting his powers, which is not permissible . . 19. In both the matters, objections have been submitted before the Collector to whom the powers were delegated by the Election Commissioner. However, the collector forwarded the same for hearing to the Sub Divisional Officers, by subting his powers, which is not permissible . . 19. On behalf of the respondent - State Election Commission, inability of the writ petition is challenged and submission is advanced that election matter, the superintendence and control over the elections being of state Election Commission, the act of the Election Commission of India through Secretary cannot be challenged by way of writ petition. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Election Commission of through Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC and in the case of Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms another with Peoples Union for Civil Liberties and another vs. Union of and another, reported in 2002 AIR SCW 2186. In the first case, the Election. Commissioner had issued directions by Notification dated 28-9-1999 directing counting of votes by mixing of votes of all booths. The said notification was challenged and interim orders were passed by the High Court suspecting that notification. The Apex Court held that this order is not proper. It is observed by Apex Court that - "The term "election" as occurring in Article 329 has been held to mean and include the entire process from the issue of the Notification under section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951." Their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that the election disputes are not just private civil disputes between two parties and held that the order of the High court is not justified. It is observed that the Election Commission does have a were to supervise and direct the manner of counting of votes. The alleged mala des were held to be without any material and the order is said to be not justified. their Lordships further observed that - "The Courts should act with reluctance and shall not act except on a c and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same necessary material". their Lordships further observed that - "The Courts should act with reluctance and shall not act except on a c and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same necessary material". In the case of Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms another, etc., Their Lordships of Apex Court held thus- "The jurisdiction of the Election Commission is wide enough to include all powers necessary for smooth conduct of elections and the "election" is used in a wide sense to include the entire process of election which consists of several stages and embraces many steps." However, it is further held that "The limitation on plenary character of power is when the Parliament State Legislature has made a valid law relating to or in connection elections, the Commission required to act in conformity with the provisions. " In absence of any statutory provision, the Election Commission can issue directions to fill vacuum till there is no legislation on the subject. As stated earlier, in the present matters, no-one has raised dispute a Election Commissioners powers to delegate his powers in certain matters. State Election Commissioner delegated his powers to the Collector in respect hearing the objections; however, the Collector sub-delegated his powers. .Sub Divisional Officers. Said act of the Collector is not permissible. Hence, orders passed in both the matters by the Sub Divisional Officers are sustainable as they are not the officers to whom the State Election Commission delegated powers to hear the objections. 20. In view of the facts, circumstances and the legal position discuss above, the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officers need to be quashed. respective Collector, to whom the powers to hear the objections have delegated by the State Election Commission, needs to be directed to hear objections raised by the petitioners while constituting the wards and reservation of the seats for General Elections of the Municipal Council Paithan in Aurangabad District and at Pathri in Parbhani District. 21. In the result, we allow both writ petitions in the following terms. (a) The order dated 30-5-2006 passed by the Collector, Auranga sub-delegating the powers to the Sub Divisional Office Aurangabad as well as the order dated 19-6-2006 passed by the Divisional Officer, rejecting the objection filed by the petitioners hereby quashed and set aside. 21. In the result, we allow both writ petitions in the following terms. (a) The order dated 30-5-2006 passed by the Collector, Auranga sub-delegating the powers to the Sub Divisional Office Aurangabad as well as the order dated 19-6-2006 passed by the Divisional Officer, rejecting the objection filed by the petitioners hereby quashed and set aside. We hereby direct the District Collector, Aurangabad to the objections dated 19-5-2006 submitted by the petitioner in Petition No. 4923/2006 before the Collector, Aurangabad relation to constitution of the Ward No. 10 of Municipal Court Paithan. (b) The order dated 1-6-2006 passed by the Sub Divisional om Selu, rejecting the objections submitted on 17-5-2006 by petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The District Collector, Parbhani is hereby directed to hear the objections dated 17-5-2006 filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5138/2006 in relation to constitution of Ward No. 14 and reservation of the same. The objections of the petitioners in both writ petitions shall be heard by the respective Collectors after giving personal hearing to them, and thereafter, necessary orders on merits shall be passed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Writ petitions allowed.