Order under Section 21(4) is non-appellable but subject to revision as the term 'final' does not bar revisional jurisdiction.

1. 'Whether the decision passed under sub-section (4) of S.21 of the Act ( Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam , 1993) would be revisable as per the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules, 1995'), though sub-section (4) of S.21 was inserted in the year 1997 which gives the finality to such order' '“is the question referred for consideration and it stands listed accordingly before the Full Bench, based on the orders passed on the administrative side.

2. The Petitioner, who was 'Sarpanch' of the Gram Panchayat, Birajpali, Tahsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund and failed in the no - confidence motion held on 18.02.2019 pursuant to a notice dated 11.02.2019 issued by the Prescribed Authority i.e. the 3rd Respondent, sought to challenge the validity of the motion by filing a representation in terms of sub-section (4) of S.21 of the Act, 1993 before the 2nd Respondent. After considering the contentions raised, the said representation was rejected as per Annexure P / 1 order dated 30.05.2019, which is put to challenge in the writ petition.

3. When the matter came up for consideration before the learned single Judge, it was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that there was no other alternate remedy for the Petitioner but to approach this Court, invoking the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. It was also stated that Annexure P / 1 order passed by the Collector under S.21(4) of the Act, 1993 was 'final' in all respects, by virtue of the specific stipulation therein and that the said provision having been introduced in the statute pursuant to the amendment in the year 1997 as per Act of MP 2 of 1997, the remedy by way of Appeal or Revision under S.91 of the Act, 1993, read with S.5 of the Rules, 1995, was not to have any effect or application. Reliance was also sought to be placed on the verdict passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Sukhnandan Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( 2003 (2) JLJ 74 ) : (2003 AIHC 926 (M.P.)).

4. The above contention was sought to be rebutted from the part of the State, contending that there was an effective alternate remedy by way of 'Revision' in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act / Rules as above and the right of Revision does not stand defeated or obliterated because of the amendment as per M.P. Act 2 of 1997 as to the 'finality' mentioned under S.21(4) of the Act, 1993, which could only be in respect of an 'Appeal', and nothing else. Reliance was placed on the verdict passed by another learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Sadan Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & others (2003 (2) JLJ 54 : 2002 (2) MPHT 257). The learned single Judge took note of the rival contentions and held that, as per the terminology used in sub-section (4) of S.21 of the Act, 1993, the order passed thereunder shall be final, but according to R.5 of the Rules, 1995, the order passed by the Collector would be revisable. Since the word 'final' has been used in S.21(4) of the Act, 1993, which was introduced during existence of R.5 of the Rules, 1995, the learned Judge was of the view that the order passed under S.21(4) of the Act, 1993 had attained finality in view of the meaning of the term 'final' as explained in the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P., Lucknow v. M/s. Super Cotton Bowl Refilling Works ( 1989 (1) SCC 643 (paragraph 9) : (AIR 1989 SC 922, para 10)). It was