JUDGMENT The appellant petitioner has preferred this Appeal against Order dated 31st March, 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge refused to entertain the writ petition against a show cause notice. As a complicated question arises as to who is the 'Competent Authority ' and whether District Development Officer who issued the show cause notice has jurisdiction to issue such notice, cannot be determined by the authority, upon requests we heard the case on merits. The appellant, an elected Sarpanch of Melana Gram Panchayat was served with a show cause notice dated 15th March, 2010 by the District Development Officer, Bhavnagar, under Section 58 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ( the Act for short), calling upon him to explain why action be not initiated under Section 58(1) and (2). The said notice has been challenged on the ground that the District Development Officer, Bhavnagar has no jurisdiction to issue such notice under Section 58(2) of the Act, he being not the 'Competent Authority .Mr. P.K. Jani, learned Government Pleader accepts that the District Development Officer, Bhavnagar is not the Competent Authority as per Section 58(2) of the Act, but he would contend that the appellant having remained absent for more than 3 months between August, 2009 and October, 2009, she is deemed to have vacated the seat of Sarpanch, in view of Section 58(1) of the Act. In fact, the appellant should have preferred an appeal against the same.The stand taken by counsel for the District Development Officer, Bhavnagar is that the said Officer having delegated with the power by the District Panchayat under Section 58(2) of the Act, he is the Competent Authority having jurisdiction to issue such notice. The brief facts of the case is that Melana Gram Panchayat by letter dated 30th November, 2009 informed Taluka Development Officer, Vallabhipur, Bhavnagar that last meeting of the village Panchayat was held on 17th July, 2009, and thereafter no meeting could be held as Sarpanch was not residing in the village. No such meeting was held between August, 2009 to October, 2009. The Sarpanch published the agenda on 20th November, 2009 and called for meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 27th November, 2009 and thus, there was a gap of 4 months 25 days in holding the meeting. No such meeting was held between August, 2009 to October, 2009. The Sarpanch published the agenda on 20th November, 2009 and called for meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 27th November, 2009 and thus, there was a gap of 4 months 25 days in holding the meeting. It was informed that meeting was required to be held every month.On 30.11.2009, the District Development Officer, Bhavnagar asked the Taluka Development Officer, Vallabhipur to inform the Sarpanch that under Section 58(1) of the Act, she is no more a Sarpanch on account of her absence for 3 months and the seat thus, fallen vacant. The District Development Officer, Bhavnagar on 4.12.2009 addressed another letter to petitioner, by which while she was intimated that she was not residing in the village and had not convened requisite number of meetings, and in view of absence of three consecutive months, she stood disqualified as Sarpanch and she was asked to remain present on 14.12.2009 and submit reply to the notice.On 6/10/2010, the Talati-cum-Mantri, Gram Panchayat informed the petitioner that she being absent for three months from August, 2009 to October, 2009, the post of Sarpanch fallen vacant as per Section 58(1) of the Act.The meeting of the Melana Gram Panchayat was held on 6.2.2010 with regard to absence of Sarpanch, and by a resolution of the same date, while four members opined in her favour to allow petitioner to continue as Sarpanch, three members dissented with such decision. But giving reference to the said proceedings, the respondents observed that post of Sarpanch fell vacant under Section 58(1) of the Act.Earlier a writ petition was filed by the petitioner, being SCA No. 804 of 2010 against notice issued by Taluka Development Officer, wherein the Court by order dated 24.2.2010 directed the Competent Authority to act in accordance with law and to allow the petitioner to discharge her duty as Sarpanch till final order is passed. It is only thereafter the District Development Officer, Bhavnagar issued show cause notice dated 15.3.2010 under Section 58(1) of the Act. We have already noticed the stand taken by the parties. It is only thereafter the District Development Officer, Bhavnagar issued show cause notice dated 15.3.2010 under Section 58(1) of the Act. We have already noticed the stand taken by the parties. Government Pleader has accepted that the District Development Officer was not competent to pass order, but it was refuted by the Counsel appearing for Taluka Development Officer on the ground that the Village Panchayat has empowered him.Under Section 58(1)(a) of the Act, if any member of a village panchayat is absent for more than 3 consecutive months from the village, his seat shall stand vacant. U/s. 58 (2) any dispute about vacancy has to be referred for decision before the competent authority. For proper appreciation, the relevant provision is quoted hereunder :- 58. [1] Any member of a village panchayat who during his term of office-(a) is absent for more than three consecutive months from the village unless leave not exceeding four months so to absent himself has been granted by the Panchayat; or(b) absent himself for four consecutive months from the meetings of the panchayat without the leave of the said panchayat;shall cease to be a member and his office shall be vacant and thereupon the panchayat shall as soon as may be inform him that the vacancy has occurred. [2] Any dispute as to whether a vacancy has or has not occurred under this section shall be referred for decision to the competent authority, whose decision shall be final;Provided that such reference shall not be entertained if it is made after the expiry of fifteen days from the date on which the panchayat informs under sub-section (1) the member as to the vacancy. [3] Wherever leave is granted under sub-section [1] to a member who is an Upa-Sarpanch, another member shall, subject to the conditions to which the election of the Upa-Sarpanch so absenting himself was subject, be elected to perform all the duties and exercise all the power of an Upa-Sarpanch during the period for which such leave is granted.The State Government issued Notification No. KP/193 of 1994/DEL/1094/1247 (ii)/J dated 26/07/1994, empowering the District Panchayats. Neither under the Panchayats Act nor under Rules framed thereunder, the District Panchayat has been empowered to delegate its power to any other authority. Neither under the Panchayats Act nor under Rules framed thereunder, the District Panchayat has been empowered to delegate its power to any other authority. The District Panchayat has not been empowered to even delegate its power to the District Development Officer.To decide the question of vacancy, if occurred under Rule 58 of the Act, provision has been made under Rule 54 of the Panchayat [Procedure] Rules, 1997. As per the said rule, the Panchayat is required to give written intimation to the person concerned with time and place of meeting of panchayat, as evident from Rule 54 as quoted hereinunder :- 54. Procedure of vacancy due to absence without leave under section 58, 72 or 86 [1] When in accordance with the provisions contained in section 58, or 72 or 86 a member of a panchayat ceases to be a member, the panchayat concerned shall give a written intimation to such person of the date, time and place of meeting of the panchayat at which the decision of vacancy in his office is to be taken and ask him to remain present at such meeting for personal hearing and sent his written statement also if he so chooses before the date of meeting to the panchayat, which shall be considered by the panchayat before deciding about the vacancy in the office of such member. [2] After taking into consideration the say of the member concerned and other relevant record of his presence or absence, the panchayat at its meeting decide about the vacancy and inform the person concerned whose membership falls vacant in writing and obtain its acknowledgment on record. In the case of Pinkiben Jivabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2004 (4) GLR 3735, the Court held that the District Panchayat is the 'competent authority ' to decide the question of vacancy. It is incorrect to say that the Court held that the District Development Officer has been delegated with such powers. From the aforesaid provision as discussed above and the decision of the Court, as referred to above, it will be evident that the District Panchayat is the competent authority; it has no power to sub-delegate its power; the District Development Officer is not empowered under the Act nor under the Rules; and application, if any, made to the District Panchayat amounts to abdication of its power. Therefore, the decision of the District Development Officer cannot be upheld. Further, it will be evident from the proceeding of Gram Panchayat dated 6/2/2010 that by its majority decision 4:7, the Gram Panchayat decided in favour of the petitioner. Such a decision having taken by the Village Panchayat, the Talati-cum-Mantry, Vallabhipur had no jurisdiction to issue notice on the petitioner holding that she ceases to be a Sarpanch. This apart, in absence of any notice given by the District Panchayat under Rule 54, no decision could have been taken against the petitioner. The learned Single Judge failed to notice the aforesaid provision and erred in remitting the matter. For the reasons aforesaid, the Order dated 30/11/2009 passed by the District Development Officer, Bhavnagar is set-aside. For the same very reason, we interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and set-aside the Order dated 31/03/2010. The Appeal is allowed but there shall be no order as to costs