ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 13-12-1996 passed by the Additional Collector, Distt. Chhatarpur in Revision No. 16/Panchayat/Ordi./96-97 (Annexure-P-1) wherein the validity of the no confidence motion on 26-11-1996 was given challenge. By means of the impugned order, the Additional Collector granted an interim order, though the proceedings are pending before him, staying the proceedings took place on 26-11-1996 i.e. the declaration made under Section 21 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 regarding passing of the motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch. A revision was filed by Sarpanch Murlidhar. 2. The petition is posted for orders. The respondent No. 3 is the person against whom, the motion of no confidence was passed and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by the learned State counsel. 3. With the consent of the parties, I consider it proper to dispose of the petition finally. 4. The short question involved for consideration is as to whether in the revision under Rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, a party could be granted such an order staying the effect of the passing of the motion of no confidence against Sarpanch. Section 21 is extracted below :- "21. No-confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. - (1) On a motion of no-confidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed by majority of not less than three fourth of the panchas present and voting and such majority is more than two third of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time-being, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office forthwith. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder a Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no-confidence is discussed against him. Such meeting shall be not convened in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be presided over by an officer of the Government as the Prescribed Authority may appoint the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak at, or otherwise to take part in, proceeding of the meeting. Such meeting shall be not convened in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be presided over by an officer of the Government as the Prescribed Authority may appoint the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak at, or otherwise to take part in, proceeding of the meeting. (3) No-confidence motion shall not lie against the sarpanch or up-sarpanch within a period of - (i) One year from the date on which the sarpanch or up-sarpanch enter their respective office; (ii) six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the sarpanch or up-sarpanch, as the case may be, expires; (iii) one year from the date on which previous motion of no- confidence was rejected." 5. Section 21 speaks that if the resolution is passed by a majority of not less than three fourth of the Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than two-third of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office forthwith. Cessation of holding of the office is statutory. The Rules framed under the Act come under the category of subordinate legislation and the subordinate legislation cannot override the provisions of the Act. A person against whom, a motion of no-confidence is passed, he ceases to function and ceases to hold office forthwith. An authority functioning in exercise of his power given under the rules which come under the category of subordinate legislation cannot stay such a declaration. It is well established principle that the stream cannot go higher than the source. 6. Learned State counsel invited the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in Bal Krishan Patel v. Brijendra Patel, 1985 MPLJ 332. Though this decision was cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner for making submission that stay could be granted but subsequently, the learned State counsel himself submitted that the decision was in a different situation of law as in that case, the revision was provided under the Act itself and power of staying such resolution was provided in the Act and not by means of Rules. In view of this, it is not necessary to dilate on the decision so cited. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order in not sustainable. In view of this, it is not necessary to dilate on the decision so cited. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order in not sustainable. It deserves to be set aside. 8. Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 13-12-1996 is set aside. No opinion is expressed by this Court as to the maintainability of the revision. Additional Collector is required to decide the revision at an early date.