ORDER 1. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and in particular petitioner as also counsel appearing for contesting respondent No. 5. I am of the considered opinion that order impugned in this writ petition, dated 25th Feb., 2004, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain in Case No. 312003-2004/Rev., (Annexure P-l), is not legally sustainable: . 2. I am inclined to set aside the aforementioned impugned order only on the short ground that the same was rendered without hearing the petitioner. This is clear when I read the impugned order as also the order sheets of the revision recorded by the learned revisionary authority. It does not appear that any notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the hearing of the revision. Although the petitioner had filed his caveat much prior to filing the revision, no direction was issued by the revisionary authority for issuance of the notice of revision to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, did not know the date of hearing of the revision petition. It was necessary for the authority to have issued notices to the petitioner of the revision and should have extended an opportunity of hearing and participating in the revision petition. It was much more so when the revision was eventually allowed and the order which was passed in favour of the petitioner was eventually set aside by the revisionary Court. 3. I, therefore, do not wish to burden my order by taking note of the factual controversy involved in the case as it is now for the revisionary Court to hear and decide it. 4. Consequently and in view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 25.2.2004 passed in Revision No. 3/2003-2004/Revision by the Addl. Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain (Annexure P-l) is hereby set aside. 5. Petition thus succeeds and is hereby• allowed. The revisionary authority is hereby directed to hear the revision on merits after affording due opportunity to the petitioner as also to respondent No.5 who is the revisionary petitioner and after hearing the revision on merits and examining the controversy on facts as also keeping in view the legal position arising from deciding the revision, preferably within a period of three months from the date of parties appearance on 19.4.2004 before the Addl. Commissioner, Ujjain. 6. Commissioner, Ujjain. 6. Since this Court has struck down the impugned order passed, the effect of its quashing would result in reviving of the order passed by the Collector dated 18.9.2003 •passed in petitioner's favour. This will entitle the petitioner to restore his status of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Gundikalan in Distt. Shajapur. As a necessary consequence, the petitioner will be allowed to function as an elected Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat so long as the revision is not decided by the Add!. Commissioner as directed by this Court. Depending upon the outcome of the revision, the consequential order will follow. Let the record of the case which was summoned by this Court be sent forthwith to the Addl. Commissioner, Ujjain for hearing of the revision as directed. C.C. in three days.