... : .....
lrf. P. PANCH. (APPEAL & REVISION) RULES, 1995 THE MADHYA PRADESH PANCHAYATS (APPEAL AND REVISION) RULES, 1995' CONTENTS " (PR)182 . . '. . .... .
person recei'1ng the payments stating the sum and the'ta!x or penalty ,on account of which it has been paid.
9. Recovery of tax.-Any arrear of tax or penaltY shall be recoverable .in accordance wi~ the provisions of section 81. . .
10. Sharing of taxes.-The realisation of tax under section 77 in the previovs...financial year shall be shared by the Gram Panchayat and Janapc-', ;'anchayatin.suc~ proportion as may be determined by the State Government by general or.special order. .
11. Repeal.-The previqus rules on the subject shall stand repealed on the date qf final publication of these rules in the Madhya ;Prad~shGazette.
I I I': i { Ii , , I I !
i I I ;
Ii ,..
I t f 1 , I j I I , I.;
, J~:i , .'Ili I ill i i k ! I &1;i ' I;;
: F.
{, ji.
f " I .:~ . i~ [1 "11 jj '\,..
I. .
fi ;
I:. fi ;
.1. .Short title~ .
2.' Definitiori.
3. Appeal and appellate authorities ..
4. Limitation of appeal.. ._ .',= _ . 7~~'. '.=- . . ". ': . .' ". _' .'. . ...5 .. 'ReV:is[on::~.'.:~'~~:..=.'.:;-.: ::-":: ..:::.~.:.':--.:~:_.:.: ' ..:_'.' ~,-. -~ ", ..•. - ~.,...._., ...• ,. __.....•.0 •• _ •• ~ _.,
6. Li~tation for revision.' '. .'
7.. -Fo~,of:appealor'appliGation'for h~Visiori.
8. Stay of execution, of qrders or decision.
9. Power of app~llate or revisional authority.
10. Costs. -
11. Repeal.
THE MADHYA PRADESH PANCHAYATS (APPEAL AND .__.__ _~V!SION) RULES, 1995' ._~._' =- .. . ... , _ --iNotffrc(l(;(JrrNo:-B;"T::-i5::.g5::p-~_XX1r dCiiecT28thMarch, 1995, published in M.P. H(Yl~atra.,Extraordinary, dated 29th March, 1995, page 310(1)-
(3)].-In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of Section 95 read with Sectioll 91 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat RajAdh1nlyam,' 1993 (No. LoCi994) the Sta~e Government hereby makes the follOwing rules. the same having been pre\>iously published as required by the' sub-section (3) of the Section 95 of the said;Act, namely:-
1..Short title: -These rules maY be 'called the Madhya Pradesh.
".Panqhayats (Appealand Revision) Rules, 199p. .
.... ~•.l>e~!l"!1.-~!UlJese.rules. \lIlIes.,the clmt:ext otheIWlse.requIre",-..
. (a) "Act!'meansthe-"Maclliya 'Pffiaesh -Panchayat Raj Adh1nlyam, .
..' .1993 (l of..lS9i); ~ ,-,~\.,.,- ...•....•..•.<....
(b) ...~~C~O.fl".!I.l~ans,a.s.ect1onoftheAet;-. .. ..._.... _ . 3. Appeal and appellate authorities. -Save wher.e it has been otherwise provided in the Act-or rules'or bye-laws made thereunder, an appealshalll1e,-' ,
(a) in the case of an order passed by the .Sub-Divisional Officer und~r any provision of the Act or rules or byelaws made "1h~reunder-to the Collector. ' M. P. PANCH. (APPEAL & REVISION) RULES, 1995 (PR)183
(b) in .the case of an order passed by the Collector under any provisionofthe Act or rules or l;yelawsmade 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)
(a) Gram Panchayat
(b) Janapad Panchayat
(c) Zila Panchayat '(2) Sub-DivisionalOfficer.
Collector.
Commissioner.
COMMENTARY
1. Right of Appeal.-Right of appeal is not restricted to a party to the proceeding. An appeal under Rule 3 can even be preferred by any person aggrieved. Harish Chandra Yadav v. State of M.P., 2012(2) MPLJ 27 = 2012(1) MPHT 397;
2. Maintainability of Appeal.-[l] Appointment of petitioner as Panchayat KarmLby re~olution. Under Section 91_ofAct,orderappoint~ , __ ing Panchayat 'KarmCis appealal.le--arid 'not"'a-resolutioii~-Rajku-'nar' ----c - - , , -,.,- Kushwaha u. StaJe_ofM.P., 20l3(1) MPLJ 238 = 2013(1) MP~ 24 = ILR 2013 MP 53.
[2]Termination of services of Panchayat Karmi by passing a resolution. No further orders were issued and instead the services of respondent No.5, Panchayat Karmi were brought to an end by the said resolution itself. The resolution in substance amounts to an order ..
Appeal against the said resolutior. was maintainable before the SDO.
Chandrakant Kushwaha v. Col1er:tor,Katni,2011(3) MPLJ 196 =---"2-011(S) MPHT-19-:---- -- --- --- ---------------------------------- [3]Resolution passed by Gram Panchayat. Appeal Before Collector against the resolution not mainta~nable. Jurisdiction exercised by the Collector and the Commissioner in quashing the resolution is unsustainable. Phool Singh Marko v. Sbte of M.P., 2010(3) MPLJ 66..
3. Necessary parties.-Appeal filed by candidates before Additional Conlmissioner in the matter of appointIIl;entofShiksha Karmi. Appellants at whose instance the impugned order is passed are not impleaded .as party. This- is a l11aterial lacuna. Court cannot interfere into the matter in the absence of the appellants at whose instance the impugned :app.ellat_eorde,rwas pa~se9 as Jh...ey a:ce ~ecJ;~s~aryparties. PE}titi.on suffers from misjoinder of the parties. Chakresh Kumar Jain v. State of M.P.'--2012(1) MPLJ'461-~-2011(5) MPHT 162 - - -- - '". - - -
4. AppeaIJncompetent.- Appeal challengipg the appointment of Guruji, made under Education Guarantee Scheme, could neither be preferred before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, after two years nor he was competent to hea:, such an appeal. Appeal could not be preferred by an individual but appeal can be entertained by hiIl}if filed by the Gram Panchayat. The appeal had to be heard byby the District Education Guarantee Scheme Committee. Even otherwise, appeal could not be enetertained after a period oftwoyears. Shivshakti Vyas v. S0l71:at Singh, 2002 (2) MPLJ 231.
5. Appointment of Parichayat Karmi.~[lJAppeal shall lie & Appellate Authority have necessary powers.-The provisions of an Act cannot be interpreted by reference to the provisions of a Scheme made by the Government to give effect to the provisions of the Act, but has to interpreted by reference to the provisions of the Act. Hence an appeal 'would lie against an order of appointment of Panchayat Karmi issued by Sarpanch ofGram Panchayat under Section 91 ofthe Adhiniyam read with Rule 3 of the Rules of 1995. Held, while deciding the appeal, the Appellate Authority will have all necessary powers. to grant relief in a case where he decides to allow the appeal and such powers will also include the power to decide whether the selection made by the Gram Panchayat by adopting a resolution was not correct either on facts or in . law. Further held that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Ramlal,han Rawat v. State of ~"f.P.,2000(2) MPLJ 176 = 2001(1) dLJ 280, is not correct in law, [OVERRULED]. Devidayal Raikwar v. State ofM;P., 2009(1) JLJ 7 =200B(4) MPLJ 647 = 200B(3) MPHT 505 [DB]. __ .
.(2J:.Gra;iip~I{~hay~tKarm-lapi)'~i~t~d:by\~i~j~.~ity'-;f.;~ti~g.~~t-~~---_ .
merit hence selection process vitiated. Further an objection towards' maintainability of the appeal raised by the petitioner at the last stage of final arguments also rejected for the reason that it was not raised before all three authorities below and also not even in writ petition.
Prajapal Singh v. State of M.P.) 2009(1) MPLJ 640 = 2009(1) MPWN 24 = 200B(5) MPHT 421.
[3J Appointment order of Panchayat Karmi issued by the Sarpanch ofGram P8:~cl1~y.~tJ~.appealable_anda Revision.under the Rules did not.. __ lie at all. Rajkumari Rai v. State of M.P., 2009(1) MPLJ 203 = 2009(1) MPWN1,07.
[4J Commissioner is empowered to entertain appeal against order of appointment of Panchay~t Karmi. Dhyanendra Singh v. State of M.P., 2007(1) MPHT 291.
See/also: , Abdul Hussain Qureshi v. State afM.P.,. 200B (4) MPLJ.546 = 2009(1) JLJ 320= 2009(1) MPHT 322~/ .Vijay Shankar Mishra v. State ofM.P.,200B.(4) MPLJ190.,
6. Appeal and revision.-[lJ Appointment made by.the J'anpad Panchayat. is amenable_to the appellate jurisdiction -of-the -Collector __ .
under Section 3 and' the order of the Colle.ctor is further supject to .
revision before the Commissioner under Rule 5. Shy~ma Diuivedi v.
State of M.P., 2009 (1) MPLJ 456. ..
[2]An,appeallies against an order and not against the re$()lution.
Vijay Shankar Mishra v. State of M.P., 200B (4) MPLJ 190. ' .
:(PR)184 M. P. PANCH. (APPEAL & REVISION) RULES, 1995 • M. P. PANCH. (APPEAL & REVISION) RULES, 1995 (PR)185 i t i t . I ~ t e 0 .l :l :l ~ v :l.
), 1 1 1 T ?
1 " - S ~ i ~ 1 t ) f :
1 [3] Sarpanch cannot sue and appeal independently.-Gram Panchayat is a body corporate, having power to sve or to' be sued, and the Gram Panchayat has to authorise somebody to act on its behalf and without the resolution by author:sing any person to sue of behalf of the .Panchayat, the' Sarpanch cannot Eue and appeal independently. Gram Panchayat, Bamrol v. Jagdish Singh Rawat, 2008 (3) MPLJ 127 = 2008(4) MPHT 132 = 2008(2) MPWN 102 DB.
[4]Where a motion of no confidence is passed or failed, no appeal or r~vision liest against it, since it is neither an order nor any proceeding in any pending case. 1998 (2) JLJ 267 Relied' on. Ramnath Kaushik v.
State of M.P., 1999 (1) JLJ 146.
[5] The State Government and Prescribed Authority empowered to suspend resolution, etc. passed by panchayat hence, no appeal lies against amotion of no confidence p3.ssed.RamcharanAhirwar v. S.D:O.
Jatara, 1998 (2) JLJ 267.
[6]Where remedy under this rele is available no writ petition can be entertained. Dhumsingh v. State ot !If.P., 1998 (II) MPWN 23.
See also: Moolchand Soni v. State of M.P., 2007(1) MPLJ 343 = 2007(2) MPHT 133.
4:. -Liiriifiltion-':of '-appea1:=..+n=-No=--appeal--shall-lie. -to-'the-':appeHa.te:-:':':::_.:_::--;
authority under rule 3 after the expiration of thirty days from the date of the order against which the appeal is made. .
(2) The. appellate authority Ina:, admit an appeal after the expiry of thirly days referred to in sub-rule (lL if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not'presenting it within that period.
5. Revisiori.-(I) (a) The State Government, the Commissioner, the Director of Panchayat, the Collecto!;"may on its/his own motion or on the application by any party, at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to the legality or prcoprietyof any order passed by or as to --the regufarity--ofthe-proceedin-gof~-fhe~autJiorrry-subordmaie'16 -iE7h-imcan---------- for and examine the r~cord of any case,pending before, or disposed of by, such authority and may pa.ss such order in reference thereto as it/he may think fit: .
Provided that it/he shall not v'C...ryor.reverse any order unless notice has been .served on the parties. interested anel opportunity given to them for being heard: .. ' . . . ". . .. . .
Provided further that no applica.tion for revision shall be entertained against an order appealable under -:heAct.',
(b)An application for revision b.r any party shali only be entertained if it is onthe-point of law-and not on facts. " l . .
(2)Notwithstanding ~nything 2(1ntain~din sub-rule (1),-
(i) Where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenc'ed by the State Goyernmentunder sub-rule (1)no action shall be taken by other Officermentioned in the said sub-rule . in respect thereof,. and . ,
(ii) .Where proceedings in respect of any such case have been .comrnenced by the Officermentioned in sub-rule (1), the State
1. Appeal and revision.
2. Any party.
3. Opportunity of hearing.
4. Order under.
5. Revision.
6. Appellate authority-Powers.
7. Appeal.
8. Direct writ petition-not justified.
9. Direct writ petition why justified.
10. Jurisdiction.
1. Appeal and revision.-[1] Where a motion of no confidence is.
passed or failed, no appeal or revision liest against it, since it is neither an order nor any proceeding in any pending case. 1998 (2) JLJ 267 Relied on. Ramnath' Kaushik v. State of M.P.) 1999 (1) JLJ. 14&...See also ._. _ ...- Ompr:f{~q,shv.S,tateof M.P.) 1998 :(11) .MPWN-:-SO:--=:' :.~~----~._--__. ..__ [2]No revision lies.-Appointment order ofPanGhay at Karmi issued . by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is appealable and a Revision under.
the Rules did not lie at all. Rajkumari Rai v. State of M.P.; 2009(1) MPLJ 203 = 2009(1) MPWN 107.
. .[3] No revision lies against resolution. Abdul Hussain Qureshi v.
State of M.P.) 2008 (4)MPLJ 546= 2009(1) JLJ 3~0 = 2009(1) MPHT322. .
2. Any party.- In the instant case_th~ petitioners_were_ appointed ..__ :__~ Shiksha Karmi-Grade-III and the Collector exercising powers conferred upon him directed cancellation of appointments. Although the petitioners were not made party to the proceedings still, the order..of cancellation of appointments having affected them, they are inCluded in the term 'any party' and can avail the remedy of revision. Gajendra Singh Arya v. State of M.P.) 2000 (2) MPLJ 50. .
3. Opportunity ofhearing.-Seledion list of teachers was prepared by the panchayat btit on certain complaint,s the Collector in his revisional jurisdiction cancelled the said list and orqered for preparation of revised select list. No opportunity was afforded to. the candidates who were-- selected earlier but whose' names were omitted in the revised list.
Held that the decis'ion ofthe~ele~t'committee rejecting a particular candidate by'n-ot inCluding his name in the revised select list prepared after adhering to procedure is not made appealable and the Collector was competent to exercise his revisional jurisdiction over it under rule 5 of the Rules of 1995. The M.P.Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. clearly secure an in- (PR)186 M. P. PANCH. (APPEAL & REVISION) RULES, 1995 Government may either. refrain from. taking any action under this rule in respect of such case until the final disposal of such " proceeding by such officc::ror may withdraw such proceeding and pass such order"as it may deem fit.
COl\1MENTARY SYNOPSIS Ai. P. PANCH. (APPEAL & REVISION) RULES, 1995 (PR)187 defeasible right to be appointed in. favour of a selectee if the statutory requirements under rule 5 stood satisfied. The Collector in his order had indicated that it was foundthat the earlier list required correction as it was not prepared showing merits of the candidates. The revisional jurisdiction of the Collector could be exercised by the Collector only on the point of law as clearly mandated in rule 5(1)(b)of the Rules of 1995.
The candidates whose names were Eoughtto be deleted from revised list ought to have been afforded ~n opportunity of hearing on the limited question of law on the basis ofwhich the Collector had taken suo motu action to cancel the earlier select list. Arti Bhatnagar v. State of M.P., 2000 (2)MPLJ 151=2000(I) JLJ 349 (DB).
4. Order under.-The decision of the selection committee rejecting a particular candidate by not inc uding his name in the select list required to be prepared adhering to the. procedure and the manner regulating the assessment as contemplated under Rule 5(9)of the Rules does amount to an order as contemplated under Rule 5 and the selection Committee in view of the statutory obligations cast upon it, has to be taken to fall within the ambit of"authority" as contemplated therein. In the circumstances, even the appoir_tingauthority standing authorised to challenge the select list if it finds that the select list has not been prepared in accordance with the statutory provisions or is otherwise vi~iated .in: law~':4rti:.:Bhatnagar.::u..:Btate~:pf M;P;; .. 2000....(2).-..MPLJ:..:....:...:.::co. -~:_:.
151=2000 (1) JLJ 349 (DB). .
5. Revision:.:[I] Power of-revision.:..Cail be exercised even suo motu. Harish Chandra Yadav v. State of M.P., 2012(2) MPLJ 27 = 2012(1)MPHT 397.
[2] Second revision.-(i) MteOrdisposal of the revision before the Commissioner the respondent No. 5 filed the second revision before the Minister. Revision so filed was maictainable. Ramkinkar Vishwakarma v. State of M.P., 2012(2)MPLJ 69 = 2012(3)MPHT. 253.
--- (ii)-Se-coiia:-.revlsfon--oefore-tEe-State-(}overnment-against ~:tlie------- -- revisional order of the officer mentioned in Rule 5 would lie after final disposal by such officers by virtue of class (ii).ofsub-rule (2) of Rule 5.
Abdul Hussain Qureshi v. State of14;P ..,.2008 (4) MPLJ 546 == 2009(1) JLJ 320 = 2009(1)MPHT 322.
[3].Scope of Second revision.-8econd revision against the order of . the Commissioner passed in first revisio~ is maintainable. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bharjuna Khurc v. Santosh Singh, 2010(4) MPLJ
417.;
- [4] Ascribing of reasons in dispoJal -orders.~Ifan order of Revisional Authority does not disc1c.seany kind of reason, it would be an anathema to the fundamental concept ofi:laturaljustice. The doctrine of audi alteram partem in its quintesaentialness encapsules, engulfs and inheres in it the basic'concept ofgiv:..ngreasons, for reason is the life and.
soul of the order. In the absence oflife and soul, the order is bound to be treated as unsustainable, indefensible and pregnable. A singular line order or the order which does .not reflect any kind of applicability of (PR)188 M. P. PANCH. (APPEAL & REVISION) RULES, 1995 I I I I I I I I I I ~ I 1. i !
I I I judicial mind cannot withstand scrutiny. By the aforesaid, it may not be understood that an elaborate order is to be passed but what is required in the order nlust'reflect there has been application of judicial mind.
Such reflection cannot be perceived unless some reasons are ascribed.
Therefore, ascribing of reasons while disposing of the revision is a must.
Anita Singh v. State of M.P., 2009(2) MPLJ 273 =2009(1) JLJ 132 = 2009(1) MPHT 392.
[5] No interference by High Court under Art. 226/227.-For misconduct, removal order to vacant the post of Sarpanch passed.
Collector dislllissed the appeal, only remedy of revision was available, but the Sarpanch moved case in the High Court. Held, when an efficacious alternative remedy by filing revision is provided, then until and unless a case is made out for invoking jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the impugned order is without jurisdiction or is against the settled principles of this petitioner cannot be entertained. Malti Bai v. State of M.P., 2007(1) MPLJ 332.
,[6] Where proceedings for removal were initiated by the Collector hilllself (he being the Appellate Authority hums elf) and the Sarpanch was removed by Sub-Divisional Office after enquiry then, appeal before the appellate Authority himself against the removal was not appropriate ,and the' Additional Commissioner was just.ifi,ed. in entertaining the revision. Such power 'shoulCibeiis'ed sparingly and \vItb:-:-:t6g~tit-re'asoris-; ~~:~.-,::...
Shahza Ahmed v. State of M.P., 2004 (3) MPLJ 577.
[7] The rule empowers the revisional authority to entertain a revision against an order which is not appealable. The words used 'an order' is not to be construed in a narrow manner to understand that no revision would lie if one appeal has been provided. It deserves acception that a revision would lie if the order impugned is not appealable. It is to be noted that the order passed by the Collector is not appealable, and therefore, -a-revision-would definit.ely-'li~_ag~inst the said order. True it .
is, apart from the embargo engrafted under rule 5(1)(b), -thiRevisionar-------1 Authority has also to act by keeping in Blind the distinction between an .
appeal and a revisionn, but. that does not debar .him to entertain a revision. Omkarlal Asatkar v. Sub. divisional Officer, 2001 (1) MPLJ. '
52.
[8] Any person aggrieved by the r~jection of his candidature by the selection committee and on inclusion ofhis name with select list canalso invoke the revisory jurisdiction contemplated under Rule 5 on any point of law but not on facts. The revisory jurisdiction; however, cannot be exercised in a case where the order sought to be impugned is appealableunder the Act, and if the aggrieved person has a rigpt of app~~l, he cannot be permitted to bypass the remedy of appeal. Arti Bhatnagar v.
State of M.P., 2000 (2) MPLJ151=2000 (l)'JLJ349 (DB). - [9]No appeal lies against the seleclion list prepared by the selection conlnlittee. But suo lllOtu revision can be made under rule 5. Arti Bhatnagar v. State of M.P., 2000 (2) MPLJ 151=2000 (1) JLJ 349 (DB).
M. P. PANCH. (APPEAL & REVISION) RULES, 1995 (PR)189 e i = r I r 3 r .1 .~..
1 1 ) 1 ) l G l [10] Suo motu powers of revision should be exercised within a reasonable time. Mohd. Yusuf v. State of M.P., t999 (2)JLJ 156. I [lll Collector taking case in suo-motu revision. But he cannot any order without notice to the interested parties and without hearing them.
No powers can be exercised contrary to the provisions of law. Mohd.
Yusufv. State of M.P., 1999 (2) JLJ 156.
6. Appellate authority-Powers.-Appellate Authority has an1ple power to conduct an enquiry. Muhesh Kumar v. State of M.P., 2000 (1) JLJ 276.
7. Appeal.- No appeal lies against the resolution of no-confidence motion under 8.21(1). Kandhilal Patel v. State of M.P., 1999 (2) JLJ
109.
An appeal lies against an order and not against the resolution. Vijay Shankar Mishra v. State of M.P., 2008 (4) MPLJ 190.
8. Direct ,vrit petition-notjustified.-[l] Direct writ petition not maintainable when alternative remedy of revision under Rule 5 ofM.P.
Panchayat(Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 is available. Ramesh Soni v. State of M.P., 2008 (1) MPLJ 207 .
[2]Where remedy under this rule is available no writ petition can be entertained. Dhumsingh v. State of M.P., 1998(11) MPWN 23 .
.. :_'. 9. Direct.wrjtpetitiQnwhy.j!l.~!ified.-Despite-alterna.tjye]emedya writ petition maybe preferred d'irectiy-:~-"-.- -- ---'---'.-'.._._.-..------.- -:..;..-~:..=:..=-_.:_.~~.
(i) where the Court or the Tribunallacksinlwrentjurisdidion; or
(ii) \\'hen a writ is for enforcement of fundamental rights; or
(iii) there is a violation of principal of natural justice; or
(iv) where vires of the Act is in question.'
The Inandatory extent of the provision could be relaxed only if it 'could be shown that no prejudice was caused to the party complaining.
Rq,m~st~$oni v. State of M.P., 2008 (1) MPLJ 207.
10. J tiri~di~ti~~.~-The responcfent"N0~5-;fiysuppre-ssiii~fthe'fact that ---- .----- - the writ petitidb preferred by him has already been dismissed has preferred a revision before the State Governlnent. In any case, the Minister, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department cannot sit over the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court. The initiation of proceedings by respondent No.5, before the Minister, amounts to abuse of process of law. Mordhvaj v. State of M.P., 2013(2) MPLJ 196.
6. Limitati(;)I~_f~£ r~~!sion.~(1) No application for revision shall be entertained under sub-rule (1)ofnlle 5 after the expiration"of60 days from - the date of the order.
, (2) The revisional-authority may .admit application for revision after expiry of sixty days if it is satisfiec. that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.
7. Form of appeal or application for revision.-An appeal orappticalion for revision under these rules shall be in thc form of memorandum setting forth concisely the grounds of objection to t 1H.~order against which appeal or application for reVisionis preferred and shall be accompanied by a certified copy of such order.
8. Stay of execution of orders or decision.-The appellate or reVisional authOrity referred in rules 3 and 5 may stay execution of the order appealed against pending t;hede~ision of the appeal or application for r.yision. ' COMMENTARY Grant of stay.-Where motion of no confidence is passed in the manner provided under section 21, revision authority under rule 8 is not competent to stay operation of the same because the effect of passing such are~'olution operates immediately on the motion being passed under section 21 of the Act. The provisions of this rule cannot override the effect of the provisions of section 21.Kaushalyabai v.Addl. Collector, Chhatarpur, 1998 (1) MPLJ 418.
M. P. PANCH. (APPEAL & REVISION) RULES, 1995(PR)190 (~ ! .
I- I, I 'I I i I I I i
9. Power of appellate or revisional authority.-The appellate Or revisional authority after giVingan opportunity to parties to be heard and , after such further enquiry. if any. as it may deem necessary subject to the proVisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. may confirm. vary or set aside the order or decision appealed against.
' 10. Costs. -The ,appellate or reyisigpaJauthority may award :sifcu"costs ~,..""_,". -tothe parties" as'lt may deem" proper. .
11.Repeal..The previous rules on the subject shan stand repealed on the date of final publication of these rules iIi the "Madhya PradeshGazette". ' ~ ~ ~ l('li. ~.~.'ITfUti.. ,.£;~, ~ ~.~.,o0 ~/,~.".~ OO~, 'Uf.
~~1-\J1~4~-,'lJlT 1, ~ £;.£;., 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 1~,~ 'R 1IifilfWff.-~ q'ijl~ff UUf1f<t lInTmrur~, 1f;f; ~ (~ 1 lfi! 1£; £; ~ ) O'!T~ .afd'f<rmwI3itmwr.<N I~<l'-- ~/Tffulur ~IRl'liTaitottj!~ qI~afR:a;r W. f.iufii~ f.n< "lfuim: 11«/ I<ilfuJo fil;Jz"II:{ lioWtw f'l>wr if "'Hl"'lifi ~ ~ 1"R"kl l: ,0 0~ 'lit 1(d~;;1'IT f.mo 'l>@S't ~. WilFf ~ ifil<fIf'll<'t'f ~ f.lfiln ~ 3(fq; fol"l~ff~ 'lJlT ~, ~"I~ff.~ 1~ ~ ,,'<'ft~s:t ~~'f!1R ott ~ ,(I() ~ ~ 3n~"'1""~ q'ijl'lo \i"l-1('f lInT mrur "lfiIf.wr, 1£; £; ~ ~ ar$r ~ "'M~ '!!'lif ~ 'flfur arroo ~ ~ 3f'fu;i1 ~ ~1f'l',I31r ott lj'f qI~ afR 'R.lfi' f.'tuf<ifit f.n< f.l"ll'f" Il: "lfuim: Wi'll>ilf.!\'r~~~. ~ 'Wrn~~Trj'lT'fff UUf1f<tlInTmrur "lfiIf.l'l>r, 1~£; ~ ott m<r £; 1 m;q ~ ~ <RFm (31'fF-fr~ TrtT&J1IT)f.l'l>r•. 1£;q if lll'I>fTf.lqlInTq'ijI110<f'ir "A'rG q'ijI~o ~ srmoi'f if f.r'f,~ ~ if 3f'fu;i if>rT(il'P.f ~ if ~ ~ ;#q if <msr ~ "lfiI<l>IR<i[ am ~ f.lui<['R ~ ~ 'liT!ifTimR;riff~, am: ~ 19l¥ifil:,f.r.rr ti'll~o ~ '.II'ffiTif {I"'I ~1ffi'f'liT~ 3f'fur 'If ~ ~IRlifi1OiT'R lflql~ m-of'ft>r'Fi'r *!T, 4't4/Q('f t:fCf m~ ~ ~ am ctT ~ ~ 4'lfu1 ~ ~~ ., 00000001 00000002 00000003 00000004 00000005 00000006 00000007 00000008 00000009