A revision lies against an order which is not appealable.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. By this writ petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the proceeding pending before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur in Revision Case No. 456-A-89/97-98 and further to quash the order dated 3-7-1998 passed by the said Revisional Authority directing maintenance of status quo.

2. The facts, in nut shell, are that the Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Lanji, District Balaghat in the election held on 23-5-1994. While he was functioning as such, a show-cause notice was issued to him under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) levelling certain charges against him. The Petitioner replied to the show-cause. The Sub-Divisional Officer, the Prescribed Authority, took into consideration the material brought on record and after conducting an enquiry by his order dated 20-3-1998 removed him from the post of Sarpanch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector under the Rule 4 of the M.P. Panchayat (Appeals and Revisions) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Collector called for the record from the Prescribed Authority and after hearing the parties by order dated 2-6-1998 remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for conducting a fresh enquiry. The defensibility of the aforesaid order was called in question by one Firoz Khan. Up Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Lanji wherein the Revisional Authority after entertaining the revision by his order dated 3-7-1998 directed status quo to be maintained. The grievance of the Petitioner relates to entertaining of the revision by the Additional Commissioner and passing of the order of status quo for which he has been deprived from functioning as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.

3. this Court by order dated 17-7-1998 had issued notice to the Respondents on the question of admission and final disposal and further directed stay of operation of the order dated 3-7-1998 contained in Annexure-P-1. The Respondent No. 4, the revisionist before the Additional Commissioner, filed an application for vacating the order of stay and the matter was taken up for final hearing.

4. Miss Malti Dadariya, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has raised a singular contention that the revision before the Additional Commissioner was not maintainable, and therefore, the proceeding as well as the interim order is liable to be quashed. In support of her submission she has referred to Rule 5 of the Rules and has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Someshwar v. Yokram and others, in W.P. No. 972/1998 (disposed of on 14-5-1998).

Mr. P. Naolekar, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 has contended that the revision petition is maintainable before the Additional Commissioner as the impugned order passed by the Collector is not appealable.

5. To appreciate the rival submission raised at the Bar, it is essential to refer to the Rule 3 of the Rules which reads as under:

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.

TABLE

(1) (2)

(a) Gram Panchayat Sub-Divisional Officer

(b) Janpad Panchayat Collector

(c) Zila Panchayat Commissioner.

From the aforesaid Rule