JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal. 2. This is a petition filed in representative capacity in terms of Order 1, Rule 8 of CPC. The petitioners, in this petition have challenged the communication of respondent No. 2 issued vide No. DRDJ/Court/65/2017/15003-07 dated 22.7.2017 whereby the respondent No.2 has directed the respondent No. 3 to bifurcate ward No. 3 Kharwan-A including Jaral Mohalla, Masjid Mohalla and Kharwan particularly of Panchyat Halqa Dhanmasta-C of Block Ramsoo, 3. The case set up by the petitioners is that they are the residents of revenue village Dhanmasta which has been divided into three Panchyat Halqas i.e. Dhanmasta -A, Dhanmasta -B and Dhanmasta -C. It is stated that vide order No. 139-RD of 2007 dated 29.5.2007, the respondent No. 2 purportedly in exercise of powers conferred upon him by virtue of section 4(3) of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 and sub rule 1 of Rule 4 of the Panchayati Rules, 1996 created six panch constituencies/wards of Panchayat Halqa Dhanmasta-C in the following manner: 1. Rounigam-A 2. Rounigam-B 3. Kharwan-A 4. Kharwan-B 5. Dhak-A 6. Dhak-B 4. The petitioners further claim that they are the residents of panch constituency/ward Rounigam-B of Panchayat Halqa Dhanmasta-C. It is submitted by the petitioners that legislature amended section -4 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 in pursuance of which the Chief Electoral Officer, J&K vide his communication dated 2.2.2017 directed respondent No. 2 for delimitation of panch constituencies of panchayat halqas having even number of panch constituencies, Accordingly, respondent No. 2, it is submitted, issued notice to general public regarding re-determining of panch constituencies under section 4 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 and invited objections, The petitioners claim that aforesaid notice was published in as many as four newspapers on 18.2.2017. The petitioners claim that they submitted their claim for creating new panch constituency by carving out the same from the biggest constituency i.e. Rounigam-B of panchayat halqa Dhanmasta-C, The petitioners further claim that in the claim lodged by them, they had not only pleaded that Rounigam -B was the biggest constituency in terms of population but had also pleaded that the same was the biggest even in terms of its area. The committee constituted by respondent No. 2 at the district level received objections from different quarters and after scrutinising the same, submitted the report with its recommendation to respondent No. 2, It is contended that respondent No. 2 after considering all the relevant material including the report of the committee, issued notification being Notification No. 02-DRDJ of 2017 dated 13.3.2017. This notification, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, was statutory in nature having been issued in exercise of powers conferred upon respondent No. 2 under section 4(4) of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 and the rules framed thereunder, The petitioners, therefore, contend that by virtue of aforesaid statutory notification, new panch constituency by the name of Bhatan Subanpora Qila in panchayat halqa Dhanmasta-C was created. The petitioners submit that the name of new panch constituency was duly reflected at serial No.89 of the order dated 13.3.2017 ( supra ) issued by respondent No. 5. The petitioners further submit that after the creation of new panch constituencies aforesaid, so called inhabitants of village Kharwan, approached this court by way of petition apparently filed in representative capacity seeking, inter alia, writ of certiorari for quashing the proposal of creation of new panch constituency in the panchayat halqa Dhanmasta-C notified vide notice No. 01 DRDJ of 2017 dated 2.3.2017 issued by respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the aforesaid writ petition was filed before this court, the notification dated 13.3.2017 had already been issued whereby as indicated at serial No. 89 of the aforesaid notification, new panch constituency by the name of Bhatan Subanpora Qila had already been created, Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, urges that respondent No. 2 acting pursuant to interim direction dated 6.4.2017 passed in petition filed by the inhabitants of village Kharwan i.e. OWP No. 466/2017 tempered with the statutory notification issued by him earlier on 13.3.2017 and vide communication impugned directed respondent No. 3 to bifurcate ward No. 3 Kharwan-A for constituting new panch constituency, It is this communication of respondent No. 2, which is impugned in this petition by the petitioners. 6. The respondents on being put to notice, appeared before this court and filed their objections. 6. The respondents on being put to notice, appeared before this court and filed their objections. In the objections, stand taken by the respondents is that the population of ward Kharwan-A of panchayat halqa Dhanmasta-C was found to be 280 as per the census of 2011 and therefore, being the biggest constituency in terms of population was the only constituency which deserved to be bifurcated, The respondents, therefore, submit that keeping in view the aforesaid fact and the guidelines available on the subject, the impugned communication was issued to correct the wrong which had been committed by respondent No. 2 while creating new panch constituency by the name of Bhatan Subanpora Qila of panch constituency Rounigam -B. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that panchayat halqa Dhanmasta -C is constituted of six panch constituencies and in view of the amendment carried to section 4 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989, the panchayat halqas with even number of panch constituencies were required to be reorganised so as to have odd number of panch constituencies in each panchayat halqa, A communication in this regard was issued by the office of Chief Electoral Officer, J&K on 2.2.2017 calling upon respondent No. 2 to reorganise every panchayat halqa into odd number of panch constituencies and to ensure that minimum number of panch constituencies in the panchayat halqa concerned are disturbed, while doing so. 9. Acting on the aforesaid communication of the Chief Electoral Officer as also to give effect to the amendment carried in section 4 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989, an exercise was taken by respondent No. 2 for redetermination of panch constituencies of such panchayat halqas which were having even number of panch constituencies, The notification in this regard was issued, objections invited and a committee was also constituted to consider such objections/claims. After completing aforesaid exercise and also taking note of recommendations given by the committee constituted, respondent No.2 issued Notification No. 02-DRDJ of 2017 dated 13.3.2017 whereby several new panch constituencies in different panchayat halqas of district Ramban were constituted, In panchayat halqa Dhanmasta -C also, new panch constituency by the name of Bhatan Subanpora Qila was constituted which figurers at serial No. 89 of the aforementioned notification dated 13.3.2017. At this stage it may be noted that notification dated 13.3.2017 ( supra ) was issued by the respondent No. 2 in exercise of powers conferred upon him under rule 4 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act 1989 and Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and is therefore, statutory in character. Besides the aforesaid Notification being statutory, it may be taken note of that the same was issued by the respondent No. 2 after following a fair and just procedure, As stated above and reiterated here that the aforesaid notification was issued only after inviting objections/claims, getting them considered by a committee constituted for the purpose and after taking note of all the relevant factors. 10. However, it appears, that after issuing the aforesaid notice and constituting a new panch constituency which otherwise had become final, the respondent No. 2 reconsidered issue purportedly to comply with the direction dated 6.4.2017 passed in OWP No. 446/2017, which had been filed by the inhabitants of village Kharwan of panchayat halqa Dhanmasta-C claiming the constitution of new panch constituency out of village Kharwan and issued the impugned communication. 11. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to take note of order dated 6.4.2017 passed in OWP No. 446/2017, which for facility of reference, is reproduced as under : “Heard. Four week's notice to the respondents in the main petition as well as in the MP. Steps within one week. List after service is complete. Meanwhile, as ad interim, the Chief Electoral Officer, Jammu and Kashmir and the Director, Rural Development Department, Jammu shall hear the petitioners so that their grievance is settled to their satisfaction.” 12. That as is evident from the direction issued by this court on 6.4.2017 reproduced above, this court had only directed the respondent No. 2 to provide hearing to the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition so that their grievance was settled to their satisfaction. The interim direction aforesaid did not contain any mandamus to necessarily review the order/notification dated 13.3.2017 that too without following due procedure of law, Be that as it may be, respondent No. 2 for the reasons best known to him, reconsidered the whole issue at the instance of petitioners in OWP No, 446/2017 and issued communication impugned calling upon District Panchayat Officer, Ramban to bifurcate ward No. 3 i.e. Kharwan-A so as to carve out new panch constituency from Kharwan-A. 13. It may be pointed out at the cost of repetition that notification dated 13.3.2017 was statutory in character and was issued by respondent No. 2 being competent authority to issue such notification. The power which has been conferred upon the Director, Rural Development Department, respondent No. 2 by the provision of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act and the rules framed thereunder could not have been delegated by the Director to the District Panchayat Officer, Ramban, as has been apparently done by respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 22.7.2017 impugned in this petition. It may be stated that even after upon consideration of representation filed by the inhabitants of village Kharwan, the writ petitioners in OWP No. 446/2017, respondent No. 2 was of the opinion that the notification dated 13.3.2017 in so far as it pertains to the constitution of new panch constituency in panchyat halqa Dhanmasta-C was required to be reviewed, the same could have been done only after insisting fresh objections/claims and hearing the inhabitants of village Rounigam and that too by issuing a statutory notification as was done by respondent No. 2 while issuing notification dated 13.3.2017. The statutory notification issued by respondent No. 2 could not have been reviewed or modified by respondent No. 3, District Panchayat Officer, Ramban, may be on the direction of respondent No.2. Respondent No. 2 who was delegated this power under rule 4 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 had not been empowered by aforesaid rules to further delegate the same to District Panchayat Officer, Ramban. 14. The claim of the petitioners that Rounigam -B was the biggest ward was however, contested by the official respondents, The respondents contended that it was not Rounigam -B but Kharwan-B, which was the biggest panch constituency. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents relied upon the figures given in the census of 2011. 15. Without entering into this factual aspect of the matter, I find that the impugned communication in any case is not sustainable for the reason that the statutory notification issued by respondent No. 2 could not have been modified or tempered with by way of communication issued by respondent No. 2 calling upon respondent No. 3 to constitute panch constituency out of Kharwan-A instead of Rounigam-B as was done earlier in terms of statutory notification dated 13.3.2017. The respondent No. 2 being delegate of the government in terms of rule 4 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 for the purpose of constitution and reorganisation of panch constituencies, was not authorised to further delegate his power to the respondent No. 3. 16. It is well settled that a delegate cannot further delegate his authority unless specifically empowered to do so. Well known Maximum “Delegatus non Potest Delgare” is clearly attracted in this case. It is thus, axiomatic that statutory power must be exercised only by the body or the officer in whom it has been conferred unless sub delegation of the powers is authorised by express words or by necessary implication. (see H. Labander and Sons Ltd. vs. Minister of Housing and Local Government (1970) 3 All. ER 871 and Custom and Excise Commissioner vs. Cure and Deely Ltd. 1962 (1) QB 340 K). 17. It may be stated at the cost of repetition, the respondent No. 2 in his capacity as Director Rural Development Department has been nominated as prescribed authority under rule 4 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 to divide each panchayat halqa into such number of panch constituencies as will correspond with the number of panches determined to be elected under sub section 3 of section 4 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989. As is apparent from bare perusal of rule 4 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (supra), the respondent No. 2 nominated as prescribed authority for dividing panchayat halqa has not been empowered to sub delegate his powers to any other authority subordinate to him. 18. Viewed thus, the impugned communication dated 22.7.2017 is bad in the eye of law and therefore, cannot sustain. The petition is accordingly, allowed and the impugned communication dated 22.7.2017 issued by respondent No. 3 is quashed. 18. Viewed thus, the impugned communication dated 22.7.2017 is bad in the eye of law and therefore, cannot sustain. The petition is accordingly, allowed and the impugned communication dated 22.7.2017 issued by respondent No. 3 is quashed. Respondent No. 2 may however, consider the objections/claim if any, lodged by the inhabitants of village Kharwan and if necessary, re-visit statutory notification issued on 13.3.2017 in so far as it pertains to creation of new panch constituency by the name of Bhatan Shubanpora Qila in panchayat halqa Dhanmasta-C but only after following due procedure of law, It would be in consonance with law if respondent No. 2 before taking any such decision as may be warranted, provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the affected parties i.e the petitioners herein and the petitioners in OWP No. 466/2017. 19. Writ petition alongwith connected MP(s) disposed of accordingly. OWP No. 466/2017, MP No. 1/2017. 20. In view of the decision in OWP No. 1230/2017, this petition does not call for any further direction and the same is, therefore, disposed of in terms thereof.