ORDER 1. Petitioner Bhim Singh Deharia was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sirgoura, Block parasia, District Chhindwara. A motion of no-confidence was brought against him which was considered in the special meeting convened for the purpose by the members of the Gram Panchayat on 10.1.1997 and the same was said to have been carried out against him. On 13.1.1997, the Chief Executive Officer of the said Panchayat directed the petitioner to hand over articles and records to the Panchayat Secretary. Said proceedings were challenged by the petitioner by means of writ petition No. 580/97, which was finally disposed of by this Court on 7.2.1997 on the objection raised by the learned State Counsel that in view of the amendment incorporated in Section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 by Amendment No.2 of 1997 bringing on the statute book sub-section (4) which reads as: " (4) If the Sarpanch or the Upsarpanch, as the case may be, desires to challenge the validity of the motion carried out under sub-section (1), he shall, within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried, refer the dispute to the Collector who shall decide it, as far as possible, within thirty days from the date on which it was received by him, and his decision shall be final" The petition is not maintainable. 2. This Court refused to interfere on merit with the order and the petitioner was relegated to avail the alternative remedy and the petitioner was required to apply for the certified copy of that proceeding by which the motion of no-confidence was passed, within 10 days from the date of the order passed in the said writ petition i.e. 7.2.97. By the said order a direction was issued to the respondents No.4 and 5 for supplying the copy of the proceeding relating to no-confidence motion and if was further observed that if within 7 days from the date of supply of copy, the petitioner files an appeal, the Collector shall decide the same according to law. 3. The newly added sub-section (4) to Section 21 of the Act provides for refering dispute to the Collector against the motion of no-confidence within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried. 4. This petition is being finally disposed of as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel. 3. The newly added sub-section (4) to Section 21 of the Act provides for refering dispute to the Collector against the motion of no-confidence within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried. 4. This petition is being finally disposed of as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel. Instead of initiating proceedings against the Collector Chhindwara as the learned State counsel stated, the Collector may be asked for deciding reference on merit as the order of this Court was not produced or communicated to the Collector otherwise there was no question of any disobedience of the order of this Court by him. Accordingly, the petition is heard and disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Collector has erred in law in disregarding the order of this Court. He should have decided the dispute on merit. Since the petitioner is being relegated to the same forum and the Collector is being directed to decide the appeal, which has been preferred by the petitioner after setting aside the order passed by him in appeal on 19.5.1997, Annexure-P-3 to the petition, on merit, it is not necessary to proceed with against the Collector as it is expected that he will act in a manner upholding the dignity of the Court. The section does not provide for extension of time for referring the dispute The Limitation Act also does not apply to such a reference. The Court has always the authority to extend such period in view of the fact that no interest can be held to be higher than the interest of justice. Further copy of the resolution is not required to be filed for referring the dispute by the aggrieved person, though this Court directed earlier. Legal position is that a party aggrieved by the resolution, which is carried out against him is entitled to raise dispute without copy of the reference as the same is not statutorily to be given to him after no-confidence motion is carried, nor such reference is required to be accompanied by certified copy of the resolution. It is job of the Collector to get resolution and 'decide reference. It is job of the Collector to get resolution and 'decide reference. However, if the certified copy of the special resolution is applied for, then on the basis of principles of justice and fair play the time so spent in obtaining the copy to be considered in computing seven days period. 6. In view of above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.5.1997 (Annexure-P/3) is quashed and the Collector Chhindwara is directed to decide reference No. 5/A-89/96-97. On being persuaded by the learned State counsel. I do not saddle the Collector Chhindwaia with the liability of cost. 7. In this petition, this Court on 2.6.1997 granted an interim order for not declaring the results of the election held till further orders. This order shall continue till the disposal of the reference by the Collector. The petitioner is required to file a certified copy of this order before the Collector Chhindwara. Certified copy of this order may be made available on payment of usual charges.