N.K. Mody, J. - (1.) Being aggrieved by order dated 02.07.05 passed by Collector, Jhabua, whereby the appeal filed by respondent no.3 was allowed and the order dated 09.09.04 passed by SDO Jobat, Dist. Jhabua who is respondent No. 2 herein was set aside, the present petition has been filed. Short facts of the case are that the respondent no. 3 was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bori Tehsil Jobat, Dist. Jhabua. Complaint was lodged by the petitioner against the respondent no. 3 before respondent no. 2 in which various illegalities and irregularities committed by the respondent no. 3 were pointed out. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner a show cause notice was given to the respondent no. 3 by the respondent no. 2 and after holding the enquiry vide order dated 09.09.04 respondent no. 3 was removed from the post of Sarpanch under section 40 of M.P. PANCHAYAT RAJ AVEM GRAM SWARAJ ADHINIYAM, 1993 hereinafter called as act of 1993. Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.04 passed by respondent no. 2, respondent no. 3 filed an appeal before respondent no. 1 which was allowed vide order dated 14.10.04 by respondent no. 1 holding that without giving any show cause notice, the order of removal of respondent no. 2 has been passed, which is illegal and is set aside. Being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no. 1, petitioner filed writ petition before this court which was numbered as W.P. No. 34/05 and was allowed vide order dated 16.03.05, whereby this court quashed the order dated 14.10.04 passed by respondent no. 1 and appeal was remanded to respondent no. 1 for deciding the same on merits. After the remand the matter was reheard by the respondent no. 1 and vide order dated 2.7.05 the respondent no. 1 again set aside the order dated 9.9.04 passed by respondent no. 2 against which, the present petition has been filed. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Yashpal Rathore and the Learned counsel for State Govt. Mr. Anand Pathak that since the order passed by collector Jhabua dated 02.07.05 is revisable under Rule V of M.P. Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995, which shall be referred hereinafter as rules, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. For this contention reliance was place on a decision of this court in the matter of Ram Lakhan Vs. State of M.P. reported in : 2000 (2) MPLJ 176 wherein this court has observed that since the remedy of revision is available to the petitioner, therefore, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection raised by respondents is not maintainable because on earlier round of litigation when the petitioner approached to this court against order dated 09.09.04 by filing writ petition no. 34/05 this objection was not raised and the petition was disposed of by this court on merits vide order dated 16.03.05. Apart from this learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition has been admitted vide order dated 17.08.05 and if the petition is admitted on merits then at the subsequent stage this objection can not be relied regarding maintainability. Reliance was placed on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Hirday Narain vs. I.T. Officer, Bareilly reported in, AIR 1971 (58) Page 33 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the petition is entertained on merits thereafter cannot be rejected on the ground that statutory remedy was not availed. Apart from this learned counsel for petitioner submits that the charges levied on respondent no. 3 were serious and after holding a detailed enquiry into the matter the respondent no. 2 has removed the respondent no. 3 from the post of Sarpanch and without dealing with any of the aspect of the case which was considered and on the basis of which respondent no. 3 was found guilty of misconduct, appeal has been allowed. Therefore, it is a fit case in which the jurisdiction can be exercised by this court under article 226 of constitution of India. In view of this writ jurisdiction can be exercised in the present case as against the earlier order passed by respondent no. 1 collector, Jhabua dated 14.01.04, the writ petition was filed and was disposed of by this court on merits vide order dated 16.03.05. At that time this objection was not raised by the respondents. Apart from this the petition was admitted for final hearing and therefore in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court ground of alternative remedy can not be raised at this stage. From perusal of the order dated 09.09.04, it is evident that respondent No. 2 after holding a detailed enquiry came to the conclusion that respondent no. 2 has issued number of illegal certificates which were beyond his jurisdiction. It is also mentioned in the order that on the basis of such certificates rights of numbers of tribal has been affected adversely. It is also mentioned in the order that respondent No. 3 has confessed the allegation. This aspect has at all not been considered by the respondent No. 1. Apart from this there is nothing in the order on the basis of which the respondent No. 1 has set aside the order passed by respondent No. 2. In the order passed by respondent No. 2 allegations were taken into consideration. It is expected by the appellate authority to take all the aspects into consideration while deciding the appeal. From perusal of the order dated 02.07.05 it is evident that respondent No. 1 has mentioned in the order that he has examined the matter minutely and has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 2. What has been examined minutely, does not find place in the order. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed impugned order dated 02.07.05 passed by respondent no. 1 collector, Jhabua is set aside with the direction to dispose of the appeal filed by the respondent no. 3 Respondent no. 1 shall consider all the grounds on which respondent no. 2 has come to the conclusion that respondent no. 3 is guilty of misconduct in discharge of his duties. Parties are directed to remain present before collector, Jhabua on 20.05.06. Till disposal of appeal charge of Sarpanch shall remain with the officer in charge. The appeal shall be disposed of by the appellate authority within two months from the date of first appearance. No order as to costs.;