ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. By this writ petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the proceeding pending before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur in Revision Case No. 456-A-89/97-98 and further to quash the order dated 3-7-1998 passed by the said Revisional Authority directing maintenance of status quo. 2. The facts, in nut shell, are that the Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Lanji, District Balaghat in the election held on 23-5-1994. While he was functioning as such, a show-cause notice was issued to him under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) levelling certain charges against him. The Petitioner replied to the show-cause. The Sub-Divisional Officer, the Prescribed Authority, took into consideration the material brought on record and after conducting an enquiry by his order dated 20-3-1998 removed him from the post of Sarpanch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector under the Rule 4 of the M.P. Panchayat (Appeals and Revisions) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Collector called for the record from the Prescribed Authority and after hearing the parties by order dated 2-6-1998 remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for conducting a fresh enquiry. The defensibility of the aforesaid order was called in question by one Firoz Khan. Up Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Lanji wherein the Revisional Authority after entertaining the revision by his order dated 3-7-1998 directed status quo to be maintained. The grievance of the Petitioner relates to entertaining of the revision by the Additional Commissioner and passing of the order of status quo for which he has been deprived from functioning as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. 3. this Court by order dated 17-7-1998 had issued notice to the Respondents on the question of admission and final disposal and further directed stay of operation of the order dated 3-7-1998 contained in Annexure-P-1. The Respondent No. 4, the revisionist before the Additional Commissioner, filed an application for vacating the order of stay and the matter was taken up for final hearing. 4. The Respondent No. 4, the revisionist before the Additional Commissioner, filed an application for vacating the order of stay and the matter was taken up for final hearing. 4. Miss Malti Dadariya, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has raised a singular contention that the revision before the Additional Commissioner was not maintainable, and therefore, the proceeding as well as the interim order is liable to be quashed. In support of her submission she has referred to Rule 5 of the Rules and has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Someshwar v. Yokram and others, in W.P. No. 972/1998 (disposed of on 14-5-1998). Mr. P. Naolekar, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 has contended that the revision petition is maintainable before the Additional Commissioner as the impugned order passed by the Collector is not appealable. 5. To appreciate the rival submission raised at the Bar, it is essential to refer to the Rule 3 of the Rules which reads as under: 3. Appeal and Appellate Authorities. - Save where it has been otherwise provided in the Act or rules or bye-laws made thereunder, an appeal shall lie, - (a) in the case of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under any provision of the Act or Rules or byelaws made thereunder to the Collector. (b) in the case of an order passed by the Collector under any provision of the Act or Rules or bye laws made thereunder to the Commissioner. (c) in the case of an order passed by the Commissioner or Director of Panchayats - to the State Government. (d) in the case of an order passed by the Panchayat specified in Column (1) of the Table below to the authority specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereto. TABLE (1) (2) (a) Gram Panchayat Sub-Divisional Officer (b) Janpad Panchayat Collector (c) Zila Panchayat Commissioner. From the aforesaid Rule it is graphically clear that an appeal lies to the Collector when the order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Hence, the present Petitioner being aggrieved by the S.D.O. had rightly preferred the appeal to the Collector. The seminal question that requires to be determined is whether against such an order a revision would lie or not. Rule 5 of the Rules deals with 'Revision'. It is apposite to reproduce the same: 5. Hence, the present Petitioner being aggrieved by the S.D.O. had rightly preferred the appeal to the Collector. The seminal question that requires to be determined is whether against such an order a revision would lie or not. Rule 5 of the Rules deals with 'Revision'. It is apposite to reproduce the same: 5. Revision.- (1)(a) The State Government, the Commissioner, the Director of Panchayat, the Collector may on its/his own motion or on the application by any party, at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceeding of the authority subordinate to it/him call for and examine the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, such authority and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he may think fit: Provided that it/he shall not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them for being heard: Provided further that no application for revision shall entertained against an order appealable under the Act. (b) An application for revision by any party shall only be entertained if it is on the point of law and not on facts. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (1) (i) Where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the State Government under Sub-rule (1) no action shall be taken by other Officer mentioned in the said sub-rule in respect thereof, and (ii) Where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the Officer mentioned in Sub-rule (1), the State Government may either refrain from taking any action under this rule in respect of such case until the final disposal of such proceeding by such officer or may withdraw such proceeding and pass such order as it may deem fit. 6. Miss Malti Dadariya has referred to the second proviso to Rule (1)(a) to highlight that an application for revision is not entertainable order against an order which is appealable under the Act. 6. Miss Malti Dadariya has referred to the second proviso to Rule (1)(a) to highlight that an application for revision is not entertainable order against an order which is appealable under the Act. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that an order would only mean the order passed by the Original Authority, and as in the case at hand the order passed by the Original Authority was appealable one, in fact, was appealed against, the Additional Commissioner has erred in law in entertaining the revision petition. In the case of Someshwar (supra) this Court opined thus: Shri Gupta, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contends that the Commissioner does not have power to hear Second Appeal under the provisions of M. P. Panchayat (Appeals & Revision) Rules, 1995. Shri Thakur, appearing on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 concedes this position. However, he submits that Respondent No. 1 shall be remediless. I am of the opinion that in the absence of any remedy under the provision of the M. P. Panchayat (Appeals and Revision) Rules, 1995, Respondent No. 3 had the remedy to impugn the order of the Collector in a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. From the aforesaid it is quite clear that this Court has expressed the view that the Commissioner has no power to hear Second Appeals under the Rules. As far as maintainability of Second Appeal before the Commissioner is concerned there can be no iota of doubt that it is not maintainable. In the case of Matho Singh v. Stale of M.P. and others, in W. P. No. 25/1998 S. K. Kulshreshtha. J has held as under: A perusal of the provision made in Rule 3 indicates that appeal is provided to the Collector from the order passed by the S.D.O. under any provision of the Panchayat Act or rules or bye-laws made thereunder. Likewise, under Clause (b) of Rule 3, an appeal is provided to the Commissioner in the case of an order passed by the Collector under any provision of the Panchayat Act or rules or bye-laws made thereunder. Likewise, under Clause (b) of Rule 3, an appeal is provided to the Commissioner in the case of an order passed by the Collector under any provision of the Panchayat Act or rules or bye-laws made thereunder. It is therefore, only against the original order passed under any provision of the Act or rules or bye-laws framed thereunder that appeal is provided to the Collector in the case of an order passed by the S.D.O., to the Commissioner in case of an order passed by the Collector and to the State Government in the case of an order passed by the Commissioner or Director of Panchayats. The fact that in none of the clauses from Clauses (a) to (d) in Rule 3, any reference has been made to an order passed under these rules M. P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. itself indicates that no appeal has been provided against an appellate order in the nature of a Second Appeal. Under these circumstances appeal from the order of the Appellate Authority (Collector in the present case) was not maintainable before the Commissioner. 8. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. The heart of the matter is whether a revision would lie or not. In the case of Someshwar (supra) the said question did not arise, and therefore, the learned Judge has observed that the remedy to impugn the order lies in a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Reading the aforesaid order. 1 am of the considered view that the same is not a pronouncement for the proposition that the revision is not maintainable. It is to be borne in mind that a ratio of a decision is what it has decided and not what may be inferred from it. At this juncture, I may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of Madho Singh (supra) wherein this Court considering the tenor of language used in Rule 5, the impact and effect of the same, has come to hold that the revision would lie against an order which is not appealable. 9. On a plain reading of the provision relating to revision it is noticed that the Rule empowers the revisional authority to entertain a revision against an order which is not appealable. 9. On a plain reading of the provision relating to revision it is noticed that the Rule empowers the revisional authority to entertain a revision against an order which is not appealable. The words used 'an order' is not to be construed in a narrow manner to understand that no revision would lie if one appeal has been provided. It deserves acceptation that a revision would lie if the order impugned is not appealable. It is to be noted that the order passed by the Collector is not appealable, and therefore, a revision would definitely lie against the said order. True it is, apart from the embargo engrafted under Rule 5(1)(b) of the Rules the Revisional Authority has also to act by keeping in mind the distinction between an appeal and a revision, but that does not debar him to entertain a revision. 10. In view of the foregoing premises, the interim order of stay passed by this Court on 17-7-1998 is vacated. The revisional authority is directed to decide the revision in accordance with law by end of December, 1998. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs.