1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as counsel for the 1 caveator.The simple issue raised by the petitioners is sought to be complicated by him by adverting to and invoking the principle that authority to review the quasi judicial orders depends on statute or exercise of legislative power by 5 the executive without due authority invalidating the act in case which relates to revocation or a putting in abeyance suspension order passed by the authority who has passed he order earlier during the pendency of the inquiry.The respondent No. 3 who was elected as Sarpanch was suspended by order dated 16.6.2003 by the Divisional Commissioner as a delegate of State under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. By order dated 25th August, 2003, the very same authority on considering that it appears to be a case of cross complaint on the basis of community bias, put in abeyance the order passed by him earlier resulting the reinstatement. Ordinarily, no contention could have been raised against this order inasmuch as the principle that the authority who has power of making an order of suspension has also power to revoke the same appropriately applies t