1. Shri Chaphekar counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner is not only inconsistent with the provisions of law but destructive to the benevolvent object of "INDIRA AWAS YOJNA". He further submitted that the action which is being assailed by this petition is inconsistent with the procedure laid down for taking such action in view of the provisions of Section 40 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, for convenience). He pointed-out that an inquiry. has been contemplated which has to be made properly; lawfully by the officers taking action in view of the provisions of Section 40 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam.

2. Shri Chaphekar further submitted that in the present case there has been absolutely no grievance from any comer of the society or the beneficiaries of Indira Avas Yojna. He submitted that the petitioner happened to be an executive person elected to the Panchayat from village Chapakheda and being so he was requested by the office bearers of Janpad Panchayat Chapakheda to guide them for constructing the houses in view of the said Avas Yojna. He f