The court emphasized the appealable and revisable nature of the orders under the provisions of M.P. Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995, and the lack of requirement for show cause notice for suspension under Section 39 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam.

S.R. Waghmare, J.-

By this Writ Appeal filed under Section 2 of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, Appellant/respondent Rameshchandra Borwal has challenged the order dated 6/2/2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court in Writ Petition No. 9291/2012.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case in a nutshell are that the Respondent/petitioner Poonamchand was the duly elected Sarpanch of Panchayat Bajrang Faliya and along with respondent No.2 Smt. Rukmabai filed an application under Section 39 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 alleging that appellant Rameshchandra Borwal the Sarpanch of the Panchayat was involved in one criminal case and therefore, the appellant should be suspended from the post of Sarpanch. The case was registered by the S.D.O. Sanwer as case No.62/B- 121/2010-11. The present appellant filed reply before the S.D.O. stating that he had filed criminal appeal No.960/10 before the Hon'ble High Court at Indore Bench and it was pleased to suspend the sentence awarded by the Trial Court and as per Section 39 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1973 the proceedings may not be taken and they be dismissed. The application filed by the respondent No.2 Smt. Rukmabai and respondent No.3 Pooonamchand were therefore, dismissed. Being aggrieved, they filed an appeal under Section 4 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1975 before the Additional Collector, who in his turn by order dated 5/8/2011 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order passed by the S.D.O. The respondent No. 2 & 3, being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, filed a Writ Petition before this High Court bearing W.P. No.9291/2012 and by order dated 16/2/2013 by way of interim order the learned Single Judge of this High Court directed the Additional Collector to pass an appropriate order within a period of 30 days and that the Writ Petition is still pending consideration.

3. However, the present appellant Rameshchandra Borwal has challenged the interim order of the learned Single Judge primarily on two grounds; firstly the alternative remedy was available to the respondents which has not been availed by them and secondly the learned Single Judge has himself observed that the conviction of the appellant had not been stayed by the High Court and therefore, the Additional Collector ought to have passed appropriate order in the appeal and by the present impugned order the learned Single Judge had granted final relief to the respondents at the interim stage which was contrary to provisions of law. Counsel further submitted that the appellant had not incurred the disqualification as per Section 39 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam since his criminal appeal is pending consideration and whereas at present considering the direction of the Additional Collector, the S.D.O. has also passed the final order on 04.06.2013 accepting the application of the respondents as per Section 39 of the Adhiniyam and suspended the appellant from the post of Sarpanch. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that such an order was contrary to the direction given by the learned Single Judge and moreover, the alternative remedy has not been exhausted. The order was passed without giving the Appellant/respondent any opportunity of hearing and therefore, perverse in this regard. Counsel further candidly admitted that the subsequent order had not yet been passed by the learned Single Judge and the petition is pending consideration.

3. Both Counsel for the respondents and State, on the other hand, have vehemently urged that in the matter of Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab and another (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 627 under the similar circumstances the Apex Court had directed that while considering the limited question whether the order of conviction should be suspended or stayed, submission that even if stay or suspension is granted the appellant would not be absolved of the disqualification is misplaced under Secti