OM PRAKASH VERMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is against the order dated 26.6.96 (AnnexureP/1). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sub -Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal against the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel submitted that section 91 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') provides for appeal and revision according to the rules framed under the Adhiniyam. Under sec. 91 of the Adhiniyam rules known as M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules (for short 'the Rules') have been framed. Rule 3 of the Rules provides that appeal shall lie against the orders passed by any authority of the Panchayat. However, rule 3 of the Rules which relates to appeal do not provide appeal against the, resolution. Rule 5 of the Rules provides for filing of revision. Rule 5 provides that the orders which are not included in rule 3 shall be revisable. On going through the provisions of section 91 of the Adhiniyam it is apparent that proceedings of the Panchayat can also be cha1lenged under the provisions of section 91 of the Adhiniyam.

(2.) SINCE proceedings are not included in rule 3 of the Rules, therefore, revisions shall lie against the resolution. The Sub -Divisional Officer is not empowered to hear revisions. As such, the order dated 26.6.96 (Annexure -P/1) is without jurisdiction and is therefore, quashed. The petition succeeds and is accordingly a1lowed.