K. Veeraswami, C.J.
1. There was a bifurcation of the appellant and the third respondent panchayats and the allotment of the jurisdiction of each of the panchayats was made with reference to the survey numbers. That was sometime in October 1964. On July 30, 1966 there was a proposal for exchange of certain survey numbers between the two panchayats, but that proposal, in the first instance, was not disposed of by the Director of Rural Development, who was the authority concerned. On the other hand, the matter was straightway taken to the Government, and its order dated October 7, 1969, addressed to the Director of Rural Development, was that the proposal for the transfer was dropped. But this order was modified by the Government by another order dated November 5, 1969, in which it said that it had no objection to the transfer of S. Nos. 26 to 32 of Nilavarapatti revenue village from the jurisdiction of the existing Dasanaickenpatti Panchayat to the Nilavarapatti Panchayat, and also to the transfer of S. Nos. 71 to 74 Nilavarapatti revenue village from the jurisdiction of Nilavarapatti Panchayat to the Dasanaickenpatti Panchayat, It did not stop there but it went further and requested the Director to take further action after following the procedure prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958. It was also conveyed to the Director of Rural Development that the Public (Elections) Department had also no objection to the proposal from the point of view of delimitation of the Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies, house-numbering and the preparation of electoral rolls. Later followed the order of the Director of Rural Development giving effect to the view of the Government. No doubt, in doing so, he bad followed the procedure prescribed by Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958. It was to quash the notification based on the order of the Director of Rural Development that the appellant had moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Palaniswami, J., declined to interfere.
2. We are unable to share the learned Judge's view. In the circumstances, if is obvious that the order of the Government dated November 5, 1969, amounted to a direction to the second respondent, Director of Rural Development, to give effect to its view, but only had added that the prescribed procedure should be followed. That was only a make believe lip sympathy to the provisions prescribing a procedure as contained in Clause (d) aforesaid. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 provides for an appeal from the order of the Director of Rural Development to the Government. As an appellate authority. Government had no jurisdiction under the Act to intervene and pass any order before the Director of Rural Development had passed the order which he did. We find from the order of the Director of Rural Development that, as a matter of fact, in passing his own order, he had read, and therefore borne in mind, the orders of the Government. The procedure followed by the Director of Rural Development was merely to satisfy the provisions of the law formally, but in substance, he was merely carrying out the orders of the Government, as appears from the recitals in his own order. We are of the view, therefore, that the impugned notification by the second respondent was vitiated.
3. We allow the appeal, quash the notification of the second respondent and remit the proposal he had originally made to him for fresh disposal, with a direction that in so doing, he shall keep out of his mind totally the directions given by the Government in the case. No costs.