JUDGMENT R.P. Verma, M. - In this appeal, a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent that the Gaon Sabha's appeal has been filed by a private counsel and it is incompetent because Para 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual is mandatory and it lays down that only a panel lawyer can be engaged by Gaon Sabha for prosecuting cases. 2. Several rulings have been cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of his view. Two of the rulings i.e. 1965 R.D. 349, and 1969 R.D. 356, are of the High Court and it has been held by the learned High Court that "Paragraph 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual, as it stands at present must, therefore, be regarded as directory". Hence, the view of the High court is that Para 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual is not mandatory. 3. There are two rulings of this Board : 1975 R.D. 290 and 1981 R.D. 268, in which it was held that sufficient compliance with the provisions of Para 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual will be alright and too technical a view should not be taken. 4. In 1971 R.D. 131, Shri Y.N. Varma, learned Member, held that where Pradhan engaged a private counsel with any resolution of the Gaon Sabha, the appeal filed by him was not maintainable. He did not discuss the High Court rulings. 5. R.D. 243, Shri M.P. Panday, learned Member, held that where there was no permission of the Collector for appointing special lawyer, the revision filed by a private lawyer shall not be maintainable. 6. Here, in this case the Collector has appointed two lawyers for prosecuting the case. In this appeal, those two lawyers were engaged, but the appeal was filed by a third lawyer, who had not been authorised was by the Collector. This vakalatnama filed by the Gaon Sabha and also by on of the authorised counsels. A has also an authority to engage another counsel and this authority is given by the terms of the Vakalatnama. The High Court ruling to the effect that Para 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual is directory is binding on this court. I think that in this case there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Para 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual and, here is no penalty clause incorporated in Para 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual. The High Court ruling to the effect that Para 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual is directory is binding on this court. I think that in this case there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Para 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual and, here is no penalty clause incorporated in Para 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual. Hence, in my view, the appeal filed by a private counsel, on being authorised by the Gaon Sabha and also by the special counsel appointed by the Collector is maintainable and cannot be thrown out. 7. My view is that the appeal is maintainable and it shall be heard on merits. 8. Put up on 16th May, 1983 for hearing the appeal on merits.