Judgment : 1. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 22.11.2007 cancelling the disqualification of respondents 4 to 7 as Panchayat Board member of Thiruchikuppam Panchayat of Polur Panchayat Union. 3. The case of the petitioner, who is the President of the said Village Panchayat is that there are nine elected ward Councillors besides the President in the Village Panchayat. Respondents 4 to 7 are elected Ward Members. Respondents 4 to 7, after receiving the agenda for the meeting to be held on 9.3.2007, 13.4.2007 and 11.5.2007, failed to attend three consecutive meetings. Panchayat Board issued show cause notice as to why they shall not be disqualified by a resolution. The said notice was attempted to be served on 12.6.2007, however, respondents 4 to 7 refused to receive the same. On the same day, the President also attempted to serve the notice. Still they refused to receive the same. Hence the President affixed the notice on the wall of the respective members house on 12.6.2007. Thereafter, a resolution was passed on 11.7.2007 by resolution No. 31. Respondents 4 to 7 also received the agenda for the said resolution. On 1.7.2007, still they have not attended the meeting on 11.7.2007. Respondents 4 to 7 also failed to approach the Judicial Authority even two months from the date of knowledge of the resolution passed against the respondents. Hence according to the petitioner, the resolution passed disqualifying the respondents 4 to 7 becomes final. The said resolution is now cancelled by the second respondent under Section 202(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, and according to the petitioner, second respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the said cancellation order. The said order is challenged on various grounds in this writ petition, particularly on the ground that procedures contemplated under Section 202(2) of the Act is not followed and the Inspector of Panchayats alone is competent to cancel the resolution as per Section 202(1)(ii). 4. The respondents 4 to 7 filed counter affidavit by contending that by G.O. Ms. The said order is challenged on various grounds in this writ petition, particularly on the ground that procedures contemplated under Section 202(2) of the Act is not followed and the Inspector of Panchayats alone is competent to cancel the resolution as per Section 202(1)(ii). 4. The respondents 4 to 7 filed counter affidavit by contending that by G.O. Ms. No. 264, the Government has delegated the power of the Inspector of Panchayats and the Assistant Director of Panchayats has got jurisdiction and therefore the second respondent being the competent authority is empowered to pass the impugned order cancelling the disqualification of the respondents 4 to 7. 5. The learned counsel relied on Section 218 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, which deals with delegation of powers. As per Section 218(2) the Inspector or the Collector may by notification authorise any officer not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer to exercise the powers and according to the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7, the second respondent was authorised by the first respondent and who in turn authorised the third respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 202(3) pursuant to which the third respondent issued notice to the petitioner and also to the respondents 4 to 7 and after perusal of the records he has submitted a report to the second respondent and the second respondent based on the said enquiry report passed the impugned order and the same is just and proper. 6. The learned counsel for other respondents also made submissions on the same line. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of the respective counsels. 8. The impugned order is passed by the second respondent who is above the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer. Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 reads as follows: “ 202. Power to suspend or cancel resolution, etc. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of the respective counsels. 8. The impugned order is passed by the second respondent who is above the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer. Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 reads as follows: “ 202. Power to suspend or cancel resolution, etc. under the Act.- ( 1) The Inspector may, by order in writing (i) suspend or cancel any resolution passed, order issued, or licence or permission granted, or (ii) prohibit the doing of any act which is about to be done or is being done, in pursuance or under colour of this Act, if in his opinion- (a) such resolution, order licence, permission or act has not been legally passed, issued, granted or authorised, or (b) such resolution, order, licence, permission or act is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or any other law or an abuse of such powers or is considered by the Inspector to be otherwise undesirable, or (c) the execution of such resolution or order, or the continuance in force of such licence or permission or the doing of such act is likely to cause danger to human life health or safety, or is likely to lead to a riot or an affray: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall enable the Inspector to set aside any election which has been held. (2) The Inspector shall, before taking action on any of the grounds referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), give the authority or person concerned an opportunity for explanation. (3) The power conferred on the Inspector under clause (c) of sub-section (1) may be exercised by the collector in accordance with the provisions of that clause.” The power to cancel the resolution is exercised only under this provision. From the perusal of the said provision it could be seen that the Inspector shall, before taking action give the authority or the person concerned an opportunity for explanation. 9. Here in this case, the second respondent is delegated with the said power under Section 218 of the Act, which reads as follows: “ 218. From the perusal of the said provision it could be seen that the Inspector shall, before taking action give the authority or the person concerned an opportunity for explanation. 9. Here in this case, the second respondent is delegated with the said power under Section 218 of the Act, which reads as follows: “ 218. Delegation of powers.- (1) The Government may, by notification, authorise any authority or officer not below the rank of a Collector to exercise in regard to any panchayat or any class or panchayats in any area or all panchayats in any area, any of the powers vested in them by this Act except the power to make rules and may in like manner withdraw such authority. (2) The Inspector or the Collector may by notification authorise any officer not below the rank of a Revenue Divisional Officer to exercise in respect of any panchayat union council or any class of panchayat union councils or all panchayat union councils in the area under the jurisdiction of such officer, any of the powers vested by this Act on the Inspector or the Collector as the case may be and may in like manner withdraw such authority. (3) The Inspector or the Collector may, by notification, authorise any officer not below the rank of a commissioner to exercise in respect of any village panchayat or any class of village panchayats or all village panchayats in the panchayat development block any of the powers vested by this Act on the Inspector or the Collector as the case may be and may in like manner withdraw such authority. (4) The exercise of any power delegated under sub-sections (1) to (3) shall be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed or as may be specified in the notification and also to control and revision by the delegating authority, or where such authority is the Government by such officer as may be empowered by the Government in this behalf. The Government shall also have power to control and revise the acts or proceedings of any officer so empowered. The Government shall also have power to control and revise the acts or proceedings of any officer so empowered. (5) The exercise of any power conferred on the Inspector or the Collector by any of the provisions of this Act including sub-sections (2) to (4) of this Section shall whether such power is exercised by the Inspector or the Collector himself or by any officer to whom it has been delegatad under subsection (2) or (3) be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed and also control by the Government or by such officer as may be empowered by them in this behalf. The Government shall also have power to control the acts or proceedings of any officer so empowered.” The second respondent has not given any opportunity either to the petitioner or to the respondents 4 to 7 before cancelling the resolution and he has relied upon the enquiry report of the third respondent. It is well settled in law that a delegated authority cannot further delegate his powers. 10. Whether the second respondent, who is the delegated authority to consider the resolution passed under Section 202(2), can further delegate the power to conduct enquiry to the third respondent is the main issue. Similar issue was answered in Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. ESI Corporation (1994) 5 SCC 346 : 1994-II-LLJ-1105 and in paragraph 5 the Supreme Court held that “ it is essential that the delegated power should be delegated power should be exercised by the authority on whom it is conferred and by no one else.” 11. The action of the second respondent in delegating his power to the third respondent to conduct enquiry is contrary to the well established latin maxim ‘ Delegatus non protest delegare‘. 12. Yet another fact noticed from the impugned order and the enquiry report is that as per Section 218(3), the resolution passed by the Village Panchayat can be scrutinised by the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union if he is notified as an authority and the resolutions passed by the Panchayat Union is scrutinised by the second respondent as per Section 218(2). Yet another fact noticed from the impugned order and the enquiry report is that as per Section 218(3), the resolution passed by the Village Panchayat can be scrutinised by the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union if he is notified as an authority and the resolutions passed by the Panchayat Union is scrutinised by the second respondent as per Section 218(2). Here, the third respondent is not authorised by the Inspector of Panchayats to scrutinise the validity of the resolution and the impugned order is passed by the second respondent, who cannot be authorised by the Inspector of Panchayats as the validity of the resolution of Village Panchayat is to be scrutinised. Even assuming that the third respondent has conducted enquiry, he has not passed any order. The third respondent, who said to have heard the matter has not admittedly decided the issue. It is a well recognised principle of law that a person who hears must decide as held by the Supreme Court in G. Nageswara Rao v. A. P. S. R. T. Corporation AIR 1959 SC 308 , wherein, at para 31 the Supreme Court held thus, “ 31. The second objection is that while the Act and the Rules framed thereunder impose a duty on the State Government to give a personal hearing, the procedure prescribed by the Rules impose a duty on the Secretary to hear and the Chief Minister to decide. This divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing. Such a procedure defeats the object of personal hearing. Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear-up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned arguments to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure.” 13. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that third respondent only requested the petitioner to produce the documents which were furnished by the petitioner and no enquiry or opportunity for explanation as contemplated under the said sub-section is given which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence on any account, the impugned order passed cannot be sustained. 14. Hence on any account, the impugned order passed cannot be sustained. 14. Admittedly, the second respondent has not conducted any enquiry or gave an opportunity for submitting explanation to the person concerned viz, the petitioner an well as the respondents 4 to 7. Hence I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is contrary to Section 202(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. 15. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority is directed to scrutinise the resolution in accordance with the statutory provisions and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the above limited extend. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.