( 1 ) THE order in this petition shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 1057 of 1989 (Babulal S/o Durgaji Patel v. The Collector, District Dewas and another) and Misc. Petition No. 1062 of 1989 (Rameshwar S/o Chainsingh v. The Collector, District Dewas and another), as all these petitions, relate to constitution and appointment of a committee, otherwise known as Administrative Committee for respective Gram Panchayats.

( 2 ) THE Government of Madhya Pradesh, on 11th July, 1989, promulgated an Ordinance No. 3 of 1989 known as Madhya Pradesh Panchayat, (Sanshodhan Tatha Vidhi Manyakaran) Adhyadesh, 1989, (for short 'the Ordinance) amending thereby Ss. 15 and 17 of the M. P. Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1981 (for short 'the Act' ). This was followed by Memo No. 2670/22 Panchayat Raj/89 dated 12th July, 1989, and Memo No. 2684/22/ Panchayat Raj/89 dated 17th July, 1989. Further clarified by Memo No. 2711-1562-22-Panchayat Raj-89 dated 21st July, 1989 which provided for guidelines to be followed in the matter of appointment of members of the Administrative Committee. These Memos have been filed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the petition.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order No. 1245 dated 24-7-1989 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent No. 1, Collector, Dewas, who in purported exercise of powers conferred by S. 17 (4) read with S. 80 (3) of the Act appointed sixteen persons named therein, as members of Administrative Committee for Gram Panchayat Tonk-Kala.

( 4 ) COLLECTOR's order appointing members of the Committee has been challenged by Shri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on two grounds (1) lacking in jurisdiction, and (2) non-compliance of the guidelines prescribed by the State Government in its Memo dated 21-7-1989 (Annexure-2) in the matter of appointment of members of the committee.

( 5 ) SHRI Samvatsar, learned Govt. Advocate, supporting the action, submitted that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed a member in view of the fact that he is facing a criminal prosecution. As for lack of jurisdiction, he placed before us a Notification dated 13th July, 1989, issued by the State Government, and contended that the Collector had authority to make appointments of members of the committee.

( 6 ) IT is the first question regarding jurisdiction and authority of the Collector, that we take up for consideration first.

( 7 ) THE impugned order dated 24-7-1989 (Annexure-3) passed by the Collector, as noted above, has been passed under S. 17 (4) read with S. 80 (3) of the Act.

( 8 ) SECTION 17 (4) of the Act reads as follows :-" (4) If before the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-section (2) the term is not extended by the State Government under sub-sec. (3) or if within the period extended by the State Government under sub-section (3) the Gram Panchayat is not newly constituted, it shall stand dissolved and the provisions of S. 77 shall apply in respect thereto. "

( 9 ) SECTION 80 (3) of the Act is also reproduced for ready reference :-" (3) On dissolution of panchayat under sub-sec. (1), the following consequences shall ensue- (a) all the panchas or members of such panchayat, shall vacate their offices with effect from the date of such order; (b) all powers and duties of the panchayat shall, until the panchayat is reconstituted be exercised and performed by such person or ! committee of persons as the State Government or the prescribed authority may appoint in this behalf and where a committee of persons is so appointed the State Government or the prescribed authority shall also appoint a head of such committee; (c) where a committee is appointed under clause (b) any member of such committee duly authorised by it may issue or institute or defend any action at law by or against the panchayat. "

( 10 ) A mere reading of these provisions of the Act would make it clear that neither of the two confer any power on the Collector to make an order, appointing members of an Administrative Committee for the