( 1 ) THE short question involved in this petition is whether an Appellate Committee of a District Panchayat can pass an order counter to the order passed by the Development Commissioner on the same subject matter.

( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are that on 28-12-1992, the Gram Panchayat Chiloda, petitioner herein, passed resolutions No. 3, 4, and 5. So far as resolution No. 5 is concerned, Appeal No. 4/1993 was preferred before the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat. The appeal was entertained by the Appellate Committee and on 25-6-1993, the Appellate Committee had passed the order, whereby the stay order granted against resoltuions No. 3, 4, and 5 was vacated. It may be noted that prior to the order dated 25-6-1993, order dated 28-5-1993 was passed by the Appellate Committee of the Distrit Panchayat, whereby the stay was vacated in Appeal No. 4/1993. It is the case of the petitioner panchayat that against the order dated 25-6-1993 of the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat, Revision Application No. 74/1993 was preferred before the Additional Development Commissioner and the said revision was entertained by the Additional Development Commissioner and the Additional Development Commissioner has passed the order on 22-7-1993, whereby the stay was granted against the operation of the order passed by the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat. The case of the petitioner is that pending the said revision, notice dated 9-8-1993 came to be issued by the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat, observing that since the matter is pending before the Additional Development Commissioner and until the final orders are not passed, the bill for recovery of additional tax cannot be served upon the applicant, Ranchhodbhai S. Patel and, therefore, it was directed that until the specific instructions are received, the operation of the same was suspended. The case of the petitioner is that thereafter notice dated 7/09/1993 was also issued by the Deputy District Development Officer to the Sarpanch of the petitioner Panchayat, intimating that inspite of the directions dated 9-8-1993, the same is not complied with and, therefore, why the action should not be taken against him. The case of the petitioner is that thereafter once again an order dated 23/09/1993 came to be passed by the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat, whereby the stay order has been granted against the bill making payment, which is the subject matter of the revision before the Development Commissioner.

( 3 ) MR. PARMAR, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the subject matter was pending before the Development Commissioner and more particularly when the Development Commissioner, who is the higher than the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat, has passed the order on 22-7-1993, the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat could not have insisted for the implementation of its earlier order dated 28/05/1993 read with the order dated 25-6-1993 and, therefore, he submits that the notice dated 9-8-1993 and further notice as the consequences thereof are without any authority and deserves to be quashed. Mr. Parmar submits that so far as the notice dated 7/09/1993 against the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat for taking action under Section 49 of the Act is concerned, the same has become infructuous, because the term of the said Sarpanch is over by efflux of time. However, he submits that the order dated 9-8-1993 is in operation and the same cannot be allowed to operate since it is running counter to the order passed by the Development Commissioner dated 22-7-1993.

( 4 ) MR. P. J. VYAS, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 has supported the order passed by the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat.

( 5 ) HOWEVER, Mr. H. C. Patel, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State Government has submitted that as a matter of fact there is a collusion between the Gram Panchayat and the person