S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) IT appears from the facts stated in the petition that the petitioner was functioning as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pathari, Block Sirmour, district Rewa at the relevant time. During the said period, under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojna, certain sums of money were made available to the said Gram Panchayat through the Block Development Officer for being spent for the purposes specified in the scheme. ( 2 ) IT also appears that in the month of October 1990, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 15-10-1990 (Annexure-P/2) by the Block Development Officer/chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sirmour asking him to explain within a period of seven days as to what works were completed by the Gram Panchayat out of the amount of Rs. 91,475/- handed over to it, failing which he /. e. the said authority would be compelled to issue a R. R. C. for the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land renvenue from him. According to the petitioner, after the receipt of the above said notice, he did submit a reply to the same dated 4-12-1990 (Annexure-P/2) to the said officer. But, then, without any enquiry having been made into the matter, the said officer vide demand notice Annexure-P/3, purporting to have been issued under Section 146 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 asked the petitioner to deposit the said amount within a period of seven days. It was made clear in the said notice that in case the said amount was not deposited within seven days, coersive steps would be taken for recovery of the amount by him. It is being aggrieved by the notices dated 15-10. 1990 (Annexure-P/1) and Annexure-P/3 issued by the Block Development Officer/chief Executive Officer, Sirmour that the petitioner has filed the present petition in this Court. ( 3 ) IN our opinion, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed on the ground that the impugned notices were issued by the Chief Executive Officer unauthorisedly in contravention of the relevant provisions contained in M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1990. ( 3 ) IN our opinion, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed on the ground that the impugned notices were issued by the Chief Executive Officer unauthorisedly in contravention of the relevant provisions contained in M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1990. ( 4 ) IT is clear to us from a perusal of the relevant provisions contained in the former Act i. e. M. P. Panchayat Act, 1981, and also those contained in the present Act i. e. M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1990, that the sums of money which had been handed over by the Government of India to the Gram Panchayat under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojna through the agency of the Block Development Office constituted a part of the 'panchayat fund' within the meaning of Section 59 and 64 respectively of the said two Acts. ( 5 ) IN view of the above said legal position, we are clear in our mind that if the case against the petitioner was that he was liable for any loss, waste or misapplication of any money of the Panchayt, the same was required to be dealt with under the provisions of Section 84 of the former Act or under the analogous provisions contained in Section 87 of the present Act. On the other hand, if the case against the petitioner was that he had unauthorisedly in his custody any money belonging to the Panchayat, and the said money was liable to be recovered from him, the matter was required to be dealt with under the provisions of Section 87 of the former Act or under the analogous provisions contained in Section 90 of the present Act. ( 6 ) IN our opinion, it is noteworthy that in both the abpvesaid situations, under the relevant notifications issued under the provisions of the two Acts, it was the 'collector or Additional Collector' who was notified as the officer to discharge the functions of the 'prescribed authority' under the two Sections. ( 6 ) IN our opinion, it is noteworthy that in both the abpvesaid situations, under the relevant notifications issued under the provisions of the two Acts, it was the 'collector or Additional Collector' who was notified as the officer to discharge the functions of the 'prescribed authority' under the two Sections. Again, in the said connection, it may further be mentioned that under both the said two sections (i. e. Sections 84 and 87 of the former Act or Sections 87 and 90 of the present Act), no action for recovery of any sum of money could be taken by the prescribed authority i. e. 'collector or Additional Collector' unless the person concerned was given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against it. It was only after offering such a reasonable opportuuity that the steps could be taken by the prescribed authority for recovery of any sum found due from the person concerned as arrears of land revenue. ( 7 ) IN the present case, it is apparent that no such procedure as mentioned above was followed by the prescribed authority i. e. the Collector or Additional Collector under the relevant provisions (i. e. Section 87 or 90) of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1990 for ascertaining the sum of money, if any, due from the petitioner in connection with the amounts said to have been made available by the Government of India to the Gram Panchayat under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojna. In the circumstances, in the absence of the relevant procedure under the M. P, Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam having been followed, there could arise no question of chief Block Development officer/chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sirmour or any other authority issuing any R. R. C. for the recovery of any such sum of money from the petitioner. Thus, it follows that the notices Annexure-P/1 dated 15-10-1990 and Annexure-P/3 issued by the Block Development Officer/ Chief Executive Officer against the petitioner were illegal and invalid and are liable to be quashed on the said ground. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Thus, it follows that the notices Annexure-P/1 dated 15-10-1990 and Annexure-P/3 issued by the Block Development Officer/ Chief Executive Officer against the petitioner were illegal and invalid and are liable to be quashed on the said ground. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The notices Annexure-P/1 dated 15-10-1990 and Annexure-P/3 issued by the Block Development Officer/chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sirmour, District Rewa against the petitioner are quashed on the ground of being illegal and invalid and the respondents are restrained from recovering any amount from the petitioner by giving effect to the said notices. Petition allowed. .