( 1. ) RESPONDENT No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram panchayat Harda, Tahsil Nepanagar, District Burhanpur. Result of election was declared on 29-1-2005. On 18-2-2005, an Election Petition was submitted by the present petitioner against respondent No. 1. In the reply, respondent No. 1 raised an objection on account of non-joinder of respondents No. 2 and 3, who were stated to be candidates in the said election. Faced with this situation, election petitioner submitted an application on 5-5-2005 under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of respondents No. 2 and 3. Learned Sub divisional Officer vide his order dated 27-6-2005 allowed the application and permitted the election petitioner to join them in the Election Petition. Aggrieved by the said order which is marked as Annx. P/3, a revision application was submitted by respondent No. 1 before the Collector Burhanpur, who vide his order dated 6-2-2006 contained in Annx. P/5, allowed the revision application and set aside the order marked as Annx. P/3.

( 2. ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid, the election petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. ( 3. ) SHRI Vinod Mehta, learned Govt. Advocate, submitted at the outset that the order of allowing application for amendment contained in Annx. P/3 could not have been challenged before the Collector and the same could be assailed only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 4. ) THE Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, provides for Election petitions and the procedure for deciding the same. Rule 23 lays down that at the conclusion of the enquiry specified officer shall make an order dismissing the election Petition; or declaring the election to be void; or any other candidate to have been duly elected. This provision empowers the specified officer to make an order only at the conclusion of the enquiry. Thus, it obviously, does not deal with the power of the specified officer to pass interlocutory orders. Rule 25 further lays down that the decision of the specified officer shall be final. Conjoint reading of Rule 23 and 25 makes it clear that the decision which is rendered after conclusion of the enquiry by specified officer shall be final and the same may not be challenged in appeal or revision.

( 5. ) SECTION 91 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, is as follows :-

"91. Appeal and Revision.- An appeal or revision against the orders or proceedings of a Panchayat and other authorities under this Act, shall lie to such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. "

Section 95, of the said Act enables the State Government to make rules. In exercise of this power, the M. P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, have been framed. Relevant position of Rules 3 and 5 of the Rules of 1995 are reproduced below :-

"3. Appeal and appellate authorities.- Save where it has been otherwise provided in the Act or rules or bye-laws made thereunder, an appeal shall lie -

(a) in the case of an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer under any provision of the Act or rules or byelaws made thereunder-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 thereunder 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. TABLESAURAS0_547_MPLJ1_2008.HTM 5. Revision.- (1) (a) The State Government, the Commissioner, the director of Panchayat, the Collector may on its/his own motion or on the application by any party, at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceeding of, the authority subordin