1. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 3.12.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been maintained.

2. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Additional Collector on a revision petition preferred by him by invoking the provisions of section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994'). The revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Collector on merit as well as on the issue of delay. In the writ petition also, all the issues were considered and thereafter the order of Additional Collector was maintained.

3. While hearing the present appeal on merit, learned Counsel for the appellant was asked to show further as to how a revision petition under section 97 was maintainable before the Collector when such a revision petition can be maintained only before the Government and further more, when there is a specific provision of appeal under section 61 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 166 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996') then how the revision under section 97 of the Act of 1994 was maintainable. The learned Counsel for the appellant prayed for time to show judgment on the issue and matter was deferred for a day. The matter again came up today. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not show any judgment on the issue, other than a judgment in Chiman Lal v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2000 (2) WLC (Raj) Referring to the judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant canvassed that a revision petition under section 97 was maintainable even before the Collector/Additional Collector. Reference has further been made of a judgment in Sampat Lal Sethia v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2002(4)WLC 577. where also, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, same issue was dealt with.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant further preferred a Notification issued by the Government by invoking the provisions of section 38 of the Act of 1994. The said notification is dated 3.12.1996 which reads as under:

"In supersession of earlier Notification No. F.4 (138) LSG/58/1, dated 1.1.1962 and in exercise of the powers conferred by section 38 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act No. 13 of 1994), the State Government hereby delegates the powers exercisable by it under the provisions of the said Act, specified in column (2) to the Officer or authority specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the schedule below."

5. Referring to the aforesaid Notification, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that even if there is no judgment on the issue, then also pursuant to the Notification referred to above, the powers under section 97 was exercisable by the Collector and in that regard. Item No. 2 of the Schedule is specifically referred. In regards to merit of the case, learned Counsel questioned the finding.

6. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that when there is a specific provision of appeal under section 61 of the Act of 1994, then without filing an appeal, a revision petition cannot be maintained before the Collector/Additional Collector. In that regard, referring to section 61 of the Act of 1994, it was specifically stated that an appeal against the order of Gram Panchayat lies to the Panchayat Samiti and if such appeal is maintained then the matter is to be heard by the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti. In this regard, a reference of Rule 166 o