JUDGMENT At the out-set, Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, raised a preliminary objection, with regard to maintainability of the petition, on the ground that against the impugned order, Petitioner has a right to file an appeal before the Collector under Rule 3 of M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1995') Rule 3 (a) makes it abundantly clear that against any order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, an appeal would lie to the Collector. Rule-4 contemplates the period of limitation for filing an appeal. The period of 30 days has been fixed under this rule, but, sub-rule 2 of rule 4 gives power to the Appellate Authority to condone the delay, if good and sufficient cause is shown by the appellant in not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. On pointing out this to the learned counsel for petitioner, he submits that he would prefer an appeal against this order, but, the question of limitation shall come in his way. Perusal of the record shows that the impugned order was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 24.9.1997 and petition was preferred by the petitioner on 18.10.1997 i.e. within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the impugned order. After having heard the counsel for parties, I dispose of this petition with the following directions; (1) The petitioner shall prefer an appeal within a period of 15 days from today. On such an appeal being filed, the Appellate Authority shall not reject it on the ground of limitation, as the petitioner had preferred this petition within the period of limitation as prescribed under Rule 4; (2) The appeal shall then, be heard and disposed of on merits and in accordance with law; (3) Office is directed to return the certified copies to the petitioner after his furnishing photo state copies of the same. The petition stands finally disposed of.