ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 6-8-96 passed in the case taken up by the Collector East Nimar (Khandwa), under suo motu revisional powers, has filed this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that assumption of the jurisdiction by the Collector for setting aside the election of the petitioner is patently illegal because an election held under the provisions of M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 can be set aside only on submission of a duly constituted election petition under Section 122(1) of the Adhiniyam and not otherwise. He submits that the manner in which the jurisdiction has been usurped would clearly show that that the learned Collector either did not try to read the provisions of the laws or did not understand the law in its true perspective. 3. Learned counsel for the State submitted that an illegality was brought to the notice of the Collector in accordance with Section 91 of the Adhiniyam read with Rule 5 of the Appeal and Revisions Rules 1995, the Collector was entitled to exercise the suo motu revisional powers and was absolutely justified in setting aside the election of the petitioner. 4. I have heard the parties at length. 5. On 5-10-95 a show cause notice bearing No. 1670/Steno-Collector/95 was issued to the petitioner asking him why his election be not cancelled under the provisions of Section 91 of the Adhiniyam read with Rule 5 of the Rules. The allegations on which the said notice was issued were that ward No, 10 of Janpad Panchayat Khalva was reserved for members of the Scheduled Tribes, the present petitioner not a member of the Scheduled Tribe and in fact belonging to the general category being a Rajput contested the election. Reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner and an inquiry was made by the Collector East Nimar. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, learned Collector recorded a finding that the petitioner did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe, being a member of Rajput community he was not entitled to contest the elections for reserved Ward No. 10. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this petition. 6. Before considering the question relating to the facts or appreciation of the evidence made by the Collector, it is necessary to see the legal provisions. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this petition. 6. Before considering the question relating to the facts or appreciation of the evidence made by the Collector, it is necessary to see the legal provisions. Section 91 of the Adhiniyam 1993 provides that an appeal or revision against the orders or proceedings of a panchayat and other authorities under the Act, shall lie to such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. The very language of Section 91 of the Adhiniyam would show that an appeal or revision would lie against the orders or proceedings of a panchayat and other authorities only. Section 91 does not provide, that an election can be challenged either in an appeal or in a revision. 7. Rule 5 of M. P. Panchayat (Appeals and Revision) Rules, 1995 provides that the State Govt., 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 called 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. 8. According to Rule 5 the named authorities either on an application by any party or on his own motion may examine the legality or propriety of any order passed by the authority subordinate to it/him. The named authorities are also entitled to examine the regularity of the proceedings of the authority subordinate to it/him. The named authorities are also entitled to call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by authority subordinate to it/him. Rule 5 no where provides that the revisional Authority either on an application by party interested or suo motu can entertain an election dispute which otherwise is required to be decided under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam 1993. Section 91 of the Adhiniyam read with Rule 5 of 1995 Rules would make it clear that the revisional authority can only examine the legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of an authority subordinate to it. Section 91 of the Adhiniyam read with Rule 5 of 1995 Rules would make it clear that the revisional authority can only examine the legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of an authority subordinate to it. Neither the section nor the rule provides that the revisional authority under the garb of exercising the powers under Rule 5 or Section 91 can set aside an election. It cannot be contended that an election held under the Act would either be an order or a proceedings if that is so, revisional authority would have no jurisdiction to entertain or register a dispute under Section 91 read with Rule 5 which touches the legality of the election. 9. Section 122 of the 1993 Adhiniyam provides that an election under the Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner. It further provides that no such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within 30 days from the date on which the election in question was notified; such petition shall be enquired into or disposed of according to such procedures as may be prescribed. The State Government has prescribed the rules for disposal of the election petitions. Under the law an election can be challenged only by petition presented in the prescribed manner. Such a petition is required to be filed within 30 days from the date of notification of the election result, the petition is required to be disposed of in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the State. Had the legislature any intention that revisional Court can interfere in an election matter then it was not necessary for the legislature to say that election be called in question by a petition presented in the manner prescribed. Instead legislature could say that an election can be challenged by an election petition or by way of a revision. 10. A fair reading of Section 122 of the 1993, Adhiniyam would make it crystal clear that an election conducted/held under the Act cannot be interfered either by revisional Court or by an appellate Court. An election for the first time can be interfered with only under an election petition. 10. A fair reading of Section 122 of the 1993, Adhiniyam would make it crystal clear that an election conducted/held under the Act cannot be interfered either by revisional Court or by an appellate Court. An election for the first time can be interfered with only under an election petition. The manner in which power has been exercised by the Collector clearly shows that he did not try to read the provisions of law nor has tried to understand the legal provisions. The assumption of the jurisdiction by the Collector under Section 91 of the Adhiniyam read with Rule 5 of the Rules is patently illegal. He had no jurisdiction to entertain or register a election dispute under suo motu revisional powers. 11. The order passed by the Collector is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost of Rs. 3000/-. The State would be free to recover the cost of petition from the persons who are held responsible.