JUDGMENT 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2000 passed by the Appellate Authority in a proceeding arising under Section 213A of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The said proceeding was initiated by the leader of a recognised political party of which the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 were members and were elected as such as the members of the concerned Gram Panchayat, on the allegation that on 29th August, 2000 in a requisitioned meeting of the said Gram Panchyat, the said opposite parties had exercised their voting of the contrary to the manner of voting of the majority members set up by such political party in the said Gram Panchayat. 2. The Prescribed Authority on the basis of the said complaint initiated a proceeding and further by following the procedure prescribed therefor came to the finding that the said opposite parties had exercised their voting right contrary to the manner of voting of the majority members set up by such political party in the said requisitioned meeting and, accordingly, passed an order disqualifying them as the members of the said Gram Panchayat under the aforesaid provisions of the Act. 3. The said order was appealed against by the opposite parties. The Appellate Authority on the merits of the aforesaid case did not interfere with the findings arrived at by the Prescribed Authority but reversed the order of the said Prescribed Authority solely on the plea that the Prescribed Authority acted illegally by initiating the proceeding and also by disposing of the same particularly when the complaint itself in this regard was lodged with the Executive Officer. Accordingly, he was of the opinion that the complaint itself having not been filed before the Prescribed Authority, the entire exercise of power by the Prescribed Authority was without any jurisdiction. 4. Accordingly, he was of the opinion that the complaint itself having not been filed before the Prescribed Authority, the entire exercise of power by the Prescribed Authority was without any jurisdiction. 4. "Evidently, the aforesaid complaint was though lodged with the Executive Officer, at the first instance, but on being pointed out that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the same, the petitioner made an application before the Prescribed Authority to treat the said application as the application before him and not before the Executive Officer inasmuch as the Block Development Officer, Jaipur, as per the provisions of law, was at the same time both the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samity and the Prescribed Authority of the said Gram Panchayat. Furthermore, it is evident that the said Prescribed Authority treated the same as the complaint under Section 213A of the said Act and proceeded in the manner as prescribed therefor. It is also not established from the materials-on-record that the said Prescribed Authority being also the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samity had dismissed and/or rejected the said complaint filed by the petitioner. On the contrary, by Memo No. 647 dated 9th September, 2000, it was pointed out to the petitioner that the said Executive Officer being not the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to take up the same for consideration: "Thus, in all manner and mode the said complaint was ultimately referred to the Prescribed Authority for the purpose of disposal under the provisions of law. Therefore, question did not arise for initiation of two separate proceedings on basis of the self-same complaint by the two different authorities". Even assuming, that the said Executive Officer had acted on the basis of the said complaint lodged by the Petitioner and had rejected the same, then also the effect of such initiation and rejection was in the nature of nullity as he had no jurisdiction under the statute to deal with such complaint. The said complaint having stood transferred to the Prescribed Authority on the application of the complaint, the proceeding initiated pursuant thereto had the validity in the eye of law. Therefore, the Appellate Authority proceeded absolutely on a misconception of law and passed the aforesaid impugned order dated 23rd November, 2000 absolutely illegally. The said complaint having stood transferred to the Prescribed Authority on the application of the complaint, the proceeding initiated pursuant thereto had the validity in the eye of law. Therefore, the Appellate Authority proceeded absolutely on a misconception of law and passed the aforesaid impugned order dated 23rd November, 2000 absolutely illegally. "In view of the findings arrived at both by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority on the merits of the case, I set aside the order dated 23rd November, 2000 passed by the Appellate Authority and restore the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 30th October, 2000". This revisional application is, thus, allowed. Let urgent Xerox certified copy of this order be given to the learned Advocates for all the parties as early as possible.