ORDER 1. Smt. Vidyawati Sauhgaura (R-1) is Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Magurhai. On complaint by Rajeev Pandey (P-1), a member of Janpad Panchayat, Rewa, preliminary enquiry was held by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rewa. Certain irregularities were reported to SDO, Huzur, Rewa. She was given a show cause notice under section 40(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (to be called as 'the Act' only) to which she replied on 9.10.2000. SDO, Huzur by order dated 22.1.2001 finding certain allegations proved, removed her from post of Sarpanch. Appeal by her under section 91 of the Act was allowed by Collector, Rewa vide his order dated 17.5.2001 and order of removal was set aside and she was re-instated to the post. Both the petitioners Rajeev Pandey (P-1) and Narayan Prasad Tripathi (P-2) were parties to this appeal and were represented by an advocate who was heard before passage of final order. The petitioners filed a second appeal before Commissioner, Rewa, which was dismissed after hearing advocate of the petitioners and advocate of Smt. Vidyawati (R-1). It is noteworthy that there has been no provision for second appeal under the Act. Anyhow, the petitioners had filed this second appeal and were unsuccessful in persuading the Commissioner, Rewa to their point of view. 2. Petitioners' claim that the orders given by the Collector in appeal and by the Commissioner in second appeal (revision) are contrary to material available on record and thus deserve to be quashed. According to them, complaint of corruption and irregularities in the working of Gram Pane hay at were held proved after enquiry by the SDO. They have given a long list of allegations and have tried to argue that Smt. Vidyawati Sauhgaura (R-1) adjourned the meeting of Gram Sabha on 20.8.2000 to 25.8.2000 but conducted such meeting on 24.8.2000 and false documents were prepared to cover up her mistake. It was also argued that she committed financial irregularities in construction of buildings. According to them, allegations against her were proved. 3. It is noteworthy that the Collector, Rewa and Commissioner, Rewa had set aside the order of SDO on the ground that democratically elected representatives of the public should be allowed to work and should not be unnecessarily punished. According to them, punitive action need be taken only when they cause loss to the Gram Panchayat by their obstinacy. 3. It is noteworthy that the Collector, Rewa and Commissioner, Rewa had set aside the order of SDO on the ground that democratically elected representatives of the public should be allowed to work and should not be unnecessarily punished. According to them, punitive action need be taken only when they cause loss to the Gram Panchayat by their obstinacy. According to them, there was no proper enquiry into any irregularity or misuse of the funds in construction. Copy of enquiry report of NT was not given with the show cause notice. Thus, she could not effectively reply to the same. There was no valuation of the building work done, by any competent authority. She was not given an opportunity to lead her own evidence nor the witnesses for the complainants were examined. Contention of the petitioners that meeting of Gram Sabha was not held was repelled as both the parties had admitted that such meeting of Gram Sabha was called for 20.8.2000 when there was no requisite quoram. On 24.8.2000, at least 50 persons had signed the proceedings and thus there was no question of same being forged or fabricated. In other words, both the Collector and the Commissioner after perusal of the whole record, had come to definite finding that charges against R-1 were not established. 4. It is to be noted that this Court is not a regular Court of appeal or revision. In exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction this Court is not going to enter into the merits of the matter. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan [ (2000) 6 SCC 698 ] has held: "It is well-known principle of administrative law that when relevant considerations have been taken note of and irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from consideration and that no relevant aspect has been ignored and the administrative decisions have nexus with the facts on record, the same cannot be attacked on merits. Judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as such." Further, in M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu [ AIR 1999 SC 2468 ], Apex Court has observed: "Every decision of the authority except the judicial decision is amenable to judicial review and reviewability of such a decision cannot now be questioned. However, a judicial review is permissible if the impugned action is against law or in violation of the prescribed procedure or is unreasonable, irrational or mala fide. Bad government sets a bad example. That is what exactly happened in the present case." 5. It is well settled that in a case of removal of office bearer of the Panchayat giving opportunity to show cause was a material and not a mere formal requirement: Harishankar Patel v. State of M.P. and others [1999(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 57 = 1999(1) MPLJ 15 (DB)]; Principles of natural justice had to be followed : Kailash Kumar v. State of M. P. and others [ 1999 (2) JLJ 280 = 1999(2) MPLJ 722 ]; An office bearer of Panchayat could be removed only for proved misconduct : Kamal Kishore v. Janpad Panchayat, Nalkheda [ 1999(2) JLJ 370 = 2000(1) MPLJ 309 ]. Of course, not convening periodical meetings of Gram Panchayat could be a misconduct under section 44(7) of the Act: Bharatlal Yadav v. State of M.P. [1999(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 226 = 1999(2) MPLJ 510 ]. Yet such an allegation had to be proved by cogent evidence. Anyhow, both the Collector and the Commissioner had adverted to all relevant considerations and had come to conclusions in favour of respondent No.1 and such conclusion could not be challenged in this Court. 5. There is no substance in this petition. Hence, the same is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250/-, if certified.