Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
[3]Resolution is a Proceedings ofPanchayats.-A panchayat being a body corporate has to act by passing resolutions. There can be no doubt that certain resolutions can be fruited and ripened and become orders. Some basically shall remain strictly in the frame or compartment of resolutions .. The question would be whether a resolution is a proceeding because section 91 ofthe Act uses the term 'proceedings'. Section 91 ofthe Act clearly stipulates that an appeal or revisionwould',lie against a proceeding of a panchayat and other authorities to such authority and in such manner as . m.'!yJ).e..Rr~~c.':i!I~g,AP.FQ~,~~qi!;lgqf.tI:!€.Qr'!lllYi'-ncMy,l!t is,!ssajl(lble in an appeal or revision. The Gram Panchayat functions by passing resolutions which eventually may fructifY and become orders but there cannot be denial ' ,,,{tl,e 'factthiita resoiutf(;fi' J.t" pro;,eed;~g~f theG~aiU' P";'~hayat. Sagar Machhua Sahakari Samiti, Seoni v. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Seoni & Anr., 2008(2)MPLJ 194 = AIR 2008 (NOC) 1388 = 1 The text of saId notification in Hindi is.published in 2006 (3) MPW 40. but its Gazette publication reference is not mentioned hence enforcement is doubtful. [3JResolution passed by Gram Panchayat. Appeal Before Collector against the resolution not maintainable. Jurisdiction exercised by the Collector and the Commissioner in quashing the resolution is unsus- tainable. Phool Singh Marko v. State of M.P., 2010(3) MPW 66. C. Necessary parties.-Appeal filed by candidates before Additional Commissioner in the matter of appointment of Shiksha Karmi. Appel- lants at whose instance the impugned order is passed are not im- pleaded as party. This is a material lacuna. Court cannot interfere into the matter in the absence of the appellants at whose instance the impugned appellate order was passed as they are necessary parties. p'etition suffers from misjoinder of the parties. Chakresh Kumar Jain 4- State of M.P., 2012(1) MPW 461 = 2011(5) MPHT 162 'Rule 5: A. Jurisdiction.-The respondent NO.5, by suppressing the fact that the writ petition preferred by him has already been dismissed has preferred a revision before the State Government. 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 oflaw. Mordhvaj v. State of M.P., 2013(2) MPW 196. B. Revision.-[lJ One revision competent.- Only one revision under clause,(a) of Rule 5 lies ,either to State Government/.Co!1UI1lS-,, sioner! birectorofPancnayator c6Jiector. The'powers conferred upon them is concurrent. No second revision lies revisional order passed by any of the authorities mentioned above. 2000 (2)MPW l76 ReI.Mamta Pateria v. State of M.P., 2002'(4) MPW 196=2002 (2) JW 89=2002 (5) MPHT76. [21 Ascribing of reasons while disposing of the revision is a must. Anita Singh v. State of M.P., 2009(2) MPW 273 = 2009(1) JW 132 = 2009(1) MPHT 392. [3J Power of revision.-Can be exercised even suo motu. Harish Chandra Yadav V. State oIM.P., 20i2(2) MPW, 27 = 2012(1) MPHT