ORDER 1. In this petition and also in other connected petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, one of the preliminary issue raised by the respondents, or I may say, one of the issue that cropped up for consideration was whether petition under Articles 226 or land 227 can he entertained against an order, whether final or interim, passed under the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) ? or whether this Court would decline to interfere in the petition on the ground of an alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner under the Act by way of an appeal or Revision as the case may be. In other words, the question that falls for consideration as one of the preliminary issue is whether an alternative remedy of appeal/revision for challenging an adverse order is available to the petitioner under the Act and if so should this Court entertain the writ. Yet another issue that falls for consideration is, if the remedy of appeal/revision is available then, against which order namely, final or interim, passed by specified authority in an election petition under the Act/Rules, it is so available ? These are broadly the questions which were argued by the learned counsel for the parties in this petition and also in other petitions involving identical points. 2. This petition as also other connected petitions arise out of election petitions filed either by the petitioner or by the respondents under section 122 read with Rule 3 of M.P. Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules 1995, before the specified officer. In some cases, election petition has been dismissed on merits after trial. In some cases, though petition has been dismissed but on a preliminary objection taken by the non-applicant. In some cases, election petition is pending but some interlocutory orders have been passed on an application made either by election petitioner or by non-applicant. In effect, therefore, the challenge in these petitions is to two types of orders, one is final order disposing of election petition, whereas the other one is to interlocution order passed in pending election petition. 3. To decide the issue, following are the relevant provisions that need to be examined :- "Sec. 91. In effect, therefore, the challenge in these petitions is to two types of orders, one is final order disposing of election petition, whereas the other one is to interlocution order passed in pending election petition. 3. To decide the issue, following are the relevant provisions that need to be examined :- "Sec. 91. Appeal and revision -- An appeal or revision against the orders or proceedings of a Panchayat and other authorities under this Act, shall lie to such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. ii. Sec. 95. Power to make rules – (1) The State Government may make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such rules may provide for all or any of the matters which under any provision of this Act, are required to be prescribed or to be provided for by rules. (3) All rules shall he subject to the condition of previous publication. (4) All rules shall be laid on the table of Legislative Assembly. (5) In making any rule, the State Government may direct that a breach thereof shall be punishable with line which may extend to two hundred fifty rupees and in the case of continuing breach with a further fine which may extend to five rupees for every day during which the breach continues after the first conviction." iii. Sec. 122. Election petition – (1) An election under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner :- (i) in case of Gram Panchayat to the Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue); (ii) in case of Janpad Panchayat to the Collector; and (iii) in case of Zila Panchayat to the Divisional Commissioner and not otherwise. (2) No such petition shall he admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election [xxx] in question was notified. (3) Such petition shall be enquired into or disposed of according to such procedures as may be prescribed. M.P. Panchayats (Appeal And Revision) Rules, 1995. "(i) Rule 3 Appeal and appellate authorities. (2) No such petition shall he admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election [xxx] in question was notified. (3) Such petition shall be enquired into or disposed of according to such procedures as may be prescribed. M.P. Panchayats (Appeal And Revision) Rules, 1995. "(i) Rule 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 Panchayat -- 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 columns (2) thereto. TABLE (1) (2) a. Gram Panchayat S.D.O. b. Janpad Panchayat Collector c. Zila Panchayat Commissioner (ii) Rule 5 -- (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 panics interested and opportunity given to them for being heard: Provided further that no application for revision shall be 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. (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 tit." The Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification/or Membership) Rules, 1995. "(i) Rule. 2(d) -- "Specified Officer" means the Officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 122 of the Act in relation to Gram Panchayat. Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayal, as the case may be." (ii) Rule. 23(1) -- At the conclusion of the enquiry the specified officer shall make an order – (a) dismissing the election petition: or (b) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void: or (c) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidate to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected. (iii) Rule 25. Finality of decision. -- The decision of the specified officer shall be final." 4. Conjoint reading of aforementioned sections and Rules would clearly show that section 91 of the Act provides that an appeal or revision against the orders or proceedings of a Panchayat and other authorities under tills Act shall lie to such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. In exercise of Rule making powers conferred under section 95 read with section 91, the State has framed Rules known as M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short hereinafter called "Appeal Rules".) These Rules are applicable only for those appeals and revisions which are filed under section 91 ibid. 5. Section 122 ibid then provides for filing an election petition. It says that an election shall be called in question only by way of petition presented in the prescribed manner. 5. Section 122 ibid then provides for filing an election petition. It says that an election shall be called in question only by way of petition presented in the prescribed manner. Sub clause (i) (ii) and (iii) then prescribe the authority to whom it shall he presented depending upon the case to which it relates. Sub-section (3) then says that a petition shall be inquired into or disposed of according to procedure as may be prescribed. In exercise of rule making power conferred under section 95 read with section 122(1) (iii) ibid, the State has framed specific rules only in relation to prosecution of election petition, which as quoted supra are known as M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules 1995, (for short hereinafter referred to as "Election Petition Rules"). 6. Perusal of Appeal Rules 1995 would show that Rule 3 provides manner in which the appeal has to be filed against the order of S.D.O., Collector and Commissioner to authorities specified in sub-Rules (a) (b) (c) and (d), whereas Rule 5 provides for filing Revision to certain specified authorities against any order passed by certain authorities. As noted supra, these rules only deal with appeal and revision mentioned in Section 91 of the Act. In other words; these rules are applicable to only those appeals and revisions which are filed under section 91, ibid. 7. Similarly, perusal of Election Petition Rules would show that it prescribes an elaborate procedure exclusively applicable to election petition from the date of its presentation till its final disposal. Rule 23 defines the word decision that will be rendered in any election petition. It then sets out three type of orders specified in sub-rule (1), (a) (b) and (c) which will be termed as decision within the meaning of Rule 23. Rule 25 then attaches finality to the decision rendered by the specified authority in any election petition. 8. If one peruses the two sets of Rules referred supra, then it would clearly show the intention of legislature. It is clearly manifest that while providing for a separate and exclusive Rules for the disposal of election petition, it does not provide therein any right of appeal or revision to an aggrieved against any adverse order. 8. If one peruses the two sets of Rules referred supra, then it would clearly show the intention of legislature. It is clearly manifest that while providing for a separate and exclusive Rules for the disposal of election petition, it does not provide therein any right of appeal or revision to an aggrieved against any adverse order. In other words, the Election Petition Rules no where provide for any appeal or revision like the one provided in Appeal and Revision Rules 1995 (rules 3 and 5). On the other hand by providing rule 25, it has attached finality to the decision rendered by the specified officer. 9. When we, therefore, compare the scheme of the Act and the separate specific Rules framed therein, it clearly emerges that the intention of legislature is to provide a right of appeal/revision only in relation to those cases which fall in section 91 of the Act and not to provide any right of appeal or/and revision to those cases arising out of section 122 ibid. This deliberate departure is discernable when we see the legislative intent in framing two categories of specific rules having no application to each other. In other words, the cases falling in section 91 of the Act are governed by Appeal Rules of 1995, whereas for election petition falling in section 122 ibid, are governed by Election Petition Rules. 10. One of the submission urged on behalf of learned counsel for respondent was that the intention of the legislature appears to provide right of appeal/revision as the case may be as provided in section 91 to an aggrieved only against interlocutory orders passed in election petition by the specified officer. The submission was that what is not made subject matter of appeal is only those orders falling in Rule 23 of Election Petition Rules by virtue of finality Clause 25, but those falling outside the purview of Rule 23 are amenable to appeal or Revision under section 91 ibid to those authorities specified for hearing appeal or revision under the appeal Rules. 11. I do not agree. The interpretation suggested would be contrary to legislative intent which is manifest by mere reading of aforequoted provisions. As observed supra, the legislature has in its wisdom enacted two different types of Rules providing for different procedure, then in that event, they exclude each other. 11. I do not agree. The interpretation suggested would be contrary to legislative intent which is manifest by mere reading of aforequoted provisions. As observed supra, the legislature has in its wisdom enacted two different types of Rules providing for different procedure, then in that event, they exclude each other. In other words, section 91 and the Rules framed thereunder i.e. appeal/revision Rules 95 will have no application to cases falling in section 122 and so vice-versa. In order to find out whether any right of appeal or revision is given to those who have suffered any adverse order whether interlocutory or final while prosecuting election petition; one has only to see section 122 and the Rules framed thereunder namely, Election Petition Rules. Since neither section 122 nor the Election Petition Rules framed for prosecution of election petition provide for any statutory remedy of appeal/ revision to an aggrieved against any order (Whether interim or final), it has to be held that in the, absence of any remedy, much less alternative statutory remedy available under the Act/Rules, an aggrieved has a right to file a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge the legality and validity of any orders. 12. The legislative intention referred supra is quite visible if one also takes note of section 76 of the Act which provides for an appeal against any tax, imposed under section 77 to the authority prescribed under the rules specifically framed for section 76. These rules are known as "Manner and Limitation of appeals against Taxation Rules 1995). Since in the matter of taxing dispute, the intention of the legislature was to provide a right of appeal, it did so by so providing in section 76 itself and then by framing specific rules confining its application only to appeal arising out of section 76 dealing with tax. 13. The aforementioned provisions would in clear terms indicate the deliberate departure in not providing any right of appeal/revision in so far as the cases falling in section 122 ibid are concerned, because even though, specific Rules are framed dealing with the cases of section 122 but instead of providing a right of appeal/revision, it has chosen to provide a finality Clause - a Clause which is not to be found in other Rules. 14. 14. It is a well settled proposition of law that it is the exclusive wisdom of the legislature to confer a right of appeal or revision against any particular order while enacting an Act. Since in the scheme of the present Act and the Rules framed thereunder no such provision is found in so far as it deals with cases falling in section 122, the aggrieved has always a right to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to get rid of an order suffered by him while prosecuting the election petition. It is then for this Court to decide as to whether any case for interference is made out or not ? 15. Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion, I overrule the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and hold that petitioner has a right to file writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against any order, whether interlocutory or final passed in election petition filed under section 122 of the Act.