JUDGMENT The petitioner by this petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India seeks to question the order dated 12.7.2001 (Annexure P-4) passed by SDO, the respondent No. 1. By impugned order the appeal filed by the petitioner before SDO against an order dated 2.6.2000 passed by Gram Panchayat Dhananda, was held to be not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. The SDO while referring to one notification dated 5.3.2001 issued under the M.P. Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 held that the appeal lies to an Appeal Committee constituted under Rule 3 of M.P. Gram Sabha (Appeal) Niyam, 2001 and hence the remedy of the petitioner is to file appeal before the said Appellate Committee constituted under Rule 3 ibid. Heard Shri A. Gupta, L/c for the petitioner. Having heard the L/c for the petitioner and having perused the order impugned, I find no merit in the writ. In my opinion, the view taken by SDO while dismissing the appeal as not maintainable before him is legal and proper. It is a case of no jurisdiction. When the SDO has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, he has to dismiss it as not maintainable whether any body raises an objection or not. The remedy of petitioner is to file appeal before the Appellate Committee under Rule 3 of M.P. Gram Sabha (Appeal) Niyam, 2001 against the order dated 2.6.2001 passed by Gram Panchayat Dhananda for its disposal according to law. The petitioner should make an application under Rule 4(2) for claiming condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground of its prosecution in wrong forum. Needless to observe the Appellate Committee will apply its mind on the application for condonation of delay and will pass appropriate orders. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.