The main legal point established in the judgment is that a resolution passed by the Panchayat is revisable under section 91 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the absence of appeal or revision against a resolution under the rules does not nullify the substantive right conferred by the Act.

( 1. ) PERCEIVING two sets of opinions one rendered in ramlakhan Rawat vs. State of M. P. and others, 2000 (2) MPLJ 176 and S. K. Shrivastava vs. Collector (Mining), Bhind, 2001 (2) Vidhi Bhaswar 103 laying down the law that appeal or revision does not lie against a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and the other in Hem Lata vs. State of M. P. , 1997 (2) Vidhi bhaswar 113 and Om Prakash Verma vs. State of M. P. , 2001 (2) Vidhi bhaswar 30 enunciating the principle that against the resolution of the Panchayat the remedy available is revision, the learned Single Judge thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench and framed two questions of law which are reproduced below: "1. Whether a resolution passed by the Panchayat or its Standing committee is revisable?

( 2. ) WHETHER the law laid down in Hem Lata and Om Prakash or in Ram lakhan and Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava decides the correct interpretation of section 91 of the Act? "

2. It is worth noting that a reference has been made in the order passed in w. P. No. 4520/2006. To appreciate the terms of reference it would be apt to state the facts bereft of unnecessary details, Janpad Panchayat, Seoni issued an advertisement on 17-6-2005 inviting applications for grant of contract for fisheries for three years for Payalee Reservoir situated in District, Seoni. The second respondent applied for the lease on 14-7-2005. The Standing Agricultural committee of the Janpad Panchayat passed a resolution in favour of the said respondent. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid resolution the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, Seoni which was registered as Case No. 19-A/89 (A21)04-05. Upon hearing the parties, the Additional collector set aside the resolution passed by the said Committee by order dated 17-10-2005 contained in Annexure-P/2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, order the respondent No. 2 preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, jabalpur, who, by order dated 18-1-2006, passed an interim order of stay. The writ petitioner appeared before the said authority filing an application that the second revision was not maintainable against the revisional order passed by the additional Collector and prayed for vacation of stay and dismissal of the revision. The Additional Commissioner as per order dated 28-1-2006 expressed the opinion that against the resolution passed by the Standing Committee of the janpad Panchayat an appeal does lie and, therefore, the order passed by the additional Collector is to be treated as an order passed in appeal and hence, the revision against the same was entertainable. Being of this view he rejected the application preferred by the present petitioner.

( 3. ) IT was contended before the learned Single Judge that against the resolution passed by the Janpad Panchayat no revision was maintainable and further no second revision is conceived under the Scheme of M. P. Panchayats (41ppeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for brevity the 1995 Rules ).

( 4. ) AT that juncture a stand was taken by the respondent No. 2 that no revision was maintainable against the resolution passed by the Panchayat and the additional Collector committed serious error by entertaining the revision and setting aside at naught the resolution passed by the Committee of the Panchayat.

( 5. ) BEFORE we advert to the scheme of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 1993 Act) and scrutinise the provisions therein and the 1995 Rules, it is seemly to refer to various decisions rendered in this context.

( 6. ) IN Ram Charan Ahirwar vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Jatara and others, 1998 (2) JLJ 267, the learned Single Judge after scanning the provision under section 91 of the 1993 Act and Rule 3 of the 1995 Rules expressed the view as under:

"9. Here I must answer an ancillary submission of Shri Nagu, representing the State, that section 91 of the Act, although uses the expression orders or proceedin