JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kogni, Tah. Gunder Dih, Distt. Durg. The Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat Smt. Janki Bai was removed under section 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The power under section 40 of the Act are delegated to the Sub Divisional Officer by the State Government under the relevant Notification. Thus, the order for removal of the Sarpanch was made by the Sub Divisional Officer. Against this order, an appeal was filed before the Additional Collector by Smt. Janki Bai but the same was rejected whereagainst Smt. Janki Bai preferred a revision before the Commissioner under the provisions of section 91 of the Act. The revision was also rejected. Thereafter the Sarpanch approached the State Government under Section 40 of the Act, which is the power of the State Government, which was exercised by virtue of delegation, by the other authorities; and as such, the State Government was competent to entertain the revision. The State Government allowed the revision, setting aside the order of suspension of the Sarpanch vide order dated 5.11.97 which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was Up-Sarpanch and he had the opportunity to officiate as Sarpanch during the intervening period. Now he has come to this Court, challenging the order of the State Government only with the object that he may continue as Sarpanch so long she is not allowed to remain as Sarpanch. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Up Sarpanch has no locus standi to come to this Court; and secondly, even otherwise, the order of the State Government does not suffer from any infirmity. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Kogni and he is an interested person as he wants to eliminate a dishonest person. The second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision by the State Government is entertainable only if it is on the point of law and not on fact and in the present case, no point of law having been involved, the State Government has acted without authority of law and without jurisdiction. So far as the first submission is concerned, that has no substance. So far as the first submission is concerned, that has no substance. The petitioner has no right to call anybody as dishonest and himself as an honest person, as the Constitution has guaranteed a right to dignity to every individual. A person can be condemned only if the law has established his guilt, not otherwise. The second submission is also sans substance, as the order of the Sub Divisional Officer removing the respondent No. 5 from the office was set aside on the basis that the Sub Divisional Officer passed the order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, to the Sarpanch. It is not a question of fact. It is a question of law, as the opportunity is a requirement of law and not the requirement of fact. The fact may have peripheral reference for this question in case any dispute is raised that the person was given opportunity. It is not the case here. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner fails on both scores. The petition deserves to be dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs.