1. By this writ application the petitioner, who is an elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Vrishbhanpura, has challenged the resolution of Gram Panchayat dated 19.4.1996, whereby the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner, has been carried out.

2. Short facts, necessary for the decision of the present writ application, are that the petitioner was an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Vrishbhanpura. For the purpose of consideration of the motion of no-confidence a meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held on 19.4.1996 and the same was presided over by the Naib Tehsildar. In the said meeting the no-confidence motion was passed by required majority and the same was determined by raising of hands of the members. The minute of the meeting of Gram Panchayat dated 19.6.1996 (Annexure P-1), impugned in the present petition inter alia shows that in the meeting 11 members raised their hands in support of the no-confidence motion and accordingly the no-confidence motion was carried out.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid procedure for voting on a no-confidence motion is not sanctioned by law and the procedure adopted. renders the motion passed non est in the eye of law.

4. Learned counsels for the respondents have, however, raised a preliminary objection, regarding the maintainability of the present writ application. Their submission is that the petitioner has an alternative remedy, by way of filing an appeal before the appellate authority under rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules. 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Appeal and Revision Rules) which reads as under :-

3. Appeal and appellate authorities. -- Save where it has been otherwise provided in the Act or rules or byelaws made there under, an appeal shall lie, --

(a) in the case of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under any provision of the Act 6r rules or bye-laws made there under -- to the Collector.

(b) in the case of an order passed by the Collector under any provision of the Act or rules or bye-laws made there under -- to the Commissioner.

(c) in the case of an order passed by the Commissioner or Director of Panchayats -- to the State Government.

(d) in the case of an order passed by the Panchayat specified in Column (1) of the Table below -- to the authority specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereto.

(1) (2)

(a) Gram Panchayat Sub-Divisional Officer.

(b) Janpad Panchayat Collector.

(c) Zila Panchayat Commissioner."

5. By referring to the aforesaid rule, the learned counsels for the respondents contend that as the order has been. passed by the Gram Panchayat, appeal shall lie before the Sub-Divisional Officer. In their submission, as the petitioner has an statutory alternative remedy, by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. However learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the motion of no-confidence passed against the petitioner cannot be equated with an order passed by the Gram Panchayat and as such the forum of appeal as provided under rule 3 of the Appeal and Revision Rules does not come in the way of the petitioner in approaching this Court, directly

6. Section 91 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 provides for appeal or revision against the order or proceedings of a Panchayat and other authorities to such authorities and in the manner as may be prescribed. It is relevant here to state that. Appeal and Revision Rules has been framed in purported exercise of the power under section 95 (1) r/w section 91 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is worth-while mentioning here that section 95 of the Act confers power on the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of this Act. Section 91 of the Act, however, provides for making the provision for the appellate revisional authority before whom appeal or revision would lie against the orders or procee