JUDGMENT In response to the show-cause notice, issued by this Court, Respondents have submitted their reply. Petitioner is challenging the order, passed by Respondent No.1, dt. 4.4.1998 and the consequential order, passed by Respondent No.2 dt. 30.4.1998, whereby, Respondent No.3 has been reinstated as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Eklera. Petitioner was elected as Up-Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. It appears that an action was taken against respondent No.3 on the basis of complaint. The prescribed authority acting under S.40 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (For brevity the 'Adhiniyam') served respondent No.3 with a notice alongwith Charge-sheet to show-cause under this Adhiniyam for his removal from the office. On account of service of notice alongwith charge-sheet, as required under S.39, of the Adhiniyam, the respondent No.3 was suspended from holding the charge of Sarpanch. The said order is required to be reported to the State Government under sub-section (2) of S.39 of the Adhiniyam within 10 days and shall be subject to such orders, as the State Government may deem fit to pass. It further contemplates that in case the order of suspension is not confirmed by the State Government within 90 days from the date of receipt of such report, it shall be deemed to have been vacated. However, this is not happened in the present case. The order of suspension was confirmed by the State Government within the period contemplated under sub-sec.(2) of S.39 of the Adhiniyam. By amendment, sub-clause (b) of S.39(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, has been deleted from the statute book w.e.f. 2.10.1997. On account of deletion of this clause from the statute book, the order of suspension, passed against respondent No.3, has been revoked by the State Government vide its order dt. 4.4.1998. It is this order, which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. Petitioner's contention is, that even, if, clause (b) of sub-sec.(1) of S.39 of the Adhiniyam, stood deleted from the statute book, but, since the order was already confirmed by the State Government on 3.10.1997, the same could not have been revoked even after deletion of the aforesaid provision. After having heard the learned counsel for parties and after perusal of the record, I find, that petitioner's stand cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the aforesaid clause (b) of sub-sec.(1) of S.39 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, has been deleted w.e.f. 2.10.1997, whereas, the said order was confirmed on 3.10.1997. After having heard the learned counsel for parties and after perusal of the record, I find, that petitioner's stand cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the aforesaid clause (b) of sub-sec.(1) of S.39 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, has been deleted w.e.f. 2.10.1997, whereas, the said order was confirmed on 3.10.1997. S.39 is in two parts. First part deals with service of notice alongwith charge-sheet to show-cause under this Adhiniyam for removal from the office. Second part contemplates confirmation of the order of suspension by the State Government. Thus, even after, deletion of clause (b), the legal position will not change, as, admittedly, there is no amendment in sub-sec.(2) of S.39 of the Adtiiniyam, 1993. This amendment in sub-clause (2) has been made effective only from 2.10.1997, whereas, the order of State Government was passed, exercising its right under sub-sec.(2) of S.39 of the Adhiniyam on 3.10.1997. Thus, the basis on which the order was to be confirmed itself, there was not in the statute book, there could not have been any confirmation of the same. I, therefore, find that the State Government was justified in revoking the said order on 4.4.1998. The learned counsel, then, submitted, that in view of the reply submitted by respondent No.3 and also keeping in mind the amendment in S.40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 appropriate action should have been taken by the prescribed authority within a period of 90 days. I am afraid, this is not the case of the petitioner. Apart from this, on the basis of the reply, filed by respondent No.3, no relief, atleast, to the detriments to the Respondent No.3 can be granted to the petitioner. I, therefore, find that there is no merit and substance in this petition. It is, hereby, dismissed but, with no order as to costs. Security amount, if, deposited, be refunded back to the petitioner, after its due verification.