Patnaik, C.J. --1. This is an appeal filed against the order dated 27.6.2006, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, by which learned Single Judge while admitting the Writ Petition No. 2907/2006 filed by the appellant, has refused to stay the operation of the orders dated 26.5.2006 and dated 8.6.2006 impugned in the said writ petition filed by the appellant.

2. Facts as stated in the writ petition briefly are that in the panchayat elections held in the year 2004, the appellant was declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bandwa, Tahsil Jaora, District Ratlam. He took charge of office of Sarpanch in the year 2005 and continued to function as Sarpanch. The Collector, Ratlam, then sent a letter dated 4.3.2006 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaora instructing him to take action against the petitioner under section 36 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1993"), or in the alternative under section 39 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Thereafter, the SDO (Revenue) informed the Collector that charges have been framed against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 380/1999 by his letter dated 29.3.2006. The Collector then instructed the SDO to act in the capacity of prescribed authority under the Adhiniyam, 1993 and the SDO, acting as prescribed authority suspended the appellant from the office of Sarpanch by order dated 26.5.2006. Aggrieved by the said order dated 26.5.2006 suspending him from the office of the Sarpanch, the appellant filed the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 2907/2006 and prayed for interim stay of the operation of the impugned order dated 26.5.2006, and also the order dated 8.6.2006 by which the prescribed authority had directed that on account of suspension of the appellant from the office of Sarpanch, an election will be held for electing a temporary Sarpanch in terms of section 39 (3), who shall perform all the duties and exercise all the powers of Sarpanch during the period the suspension of the appellant. Learned Single Judge passed the order dated 27.6.2006, admitting the writ petition, but refused to stay the operation of the aforesaid impugned orders dated 26.5.2006 and 8.6.2006 after holding that no prima facie case was made out for stay of impugned order. Learned Single Judge while taking the aforesaid view had referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Bipinchandra Parshottamdas Patel v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 642.

3. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that a reading of section 36 of Adhiniyam 1993 shows that a person would be disqualified to be an office bearer of a panchayat, only if he has been convicted either before or after the coming into force of this Act, of an offence mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1). He submitted that a Criminal Case No. 380/1999 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w section l20A of the IPC had been instituted against the appellant during the period when the wife of the appellant was a Sarpanch, but since the Court had not passed any order of conviction against the appellant, the appellant was not disqualified to hold office as an office bearer or panchayat. He further submitted that in the said criminal case, charges were framed on 14.8.2000 by the JMFC, Ratlam, and thereafter no action was taken against the appellant even after he assumed charge as Sarpanch in the year 2005 after the panchaya1 elections in 2004 and it was only in May 2006 that the impugned order was passed by the SDO, as prescribed authority, suspending the appellant from the office of Sarpanch. He vehemently submitted that the plain language of section 39 of the Adhiniyam shows that the prescribed authority may suspend any office bearer against whom charges have been framed in any criminal proceedings under the chapters of the IPC and other laws mentioned therein and therefore on the basis of the said section 39, the prescribed authority may suspend from office any office bearer, if such charges have