MATHUR, J. - (1.) BOTH these writ petitions are contrary to each other i. e. one has to hi accepted and the another has to be rejected. Therefore, for the disposal of these writ petitions I may take up the facts given in the case of Nagar Palika Karamchari Sangh, Rani vs. State of Rajasthan and Others.
(2.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order Annex. 6 may be quashed and the respondents may be directed not to dissolve the Municipal Board, Rani in the interest of the public at large for the Town of Rani. The petitioner is a Sangh constituted and registered Union. There are about 50 members in the present Sangh. The State of Rajasthan after considering over the matter constituted the Town Rani Khurad constituted from Gram Panchayat to Municipal Board, Rani before the year 1977 and the same ceased to be a Municipal Board with effect from 29. 8. 1977 and became Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, in the year 1988 by a Gazette Notification dated 2. 12. 1989 the Gram Panchayat, Rani was reconstituted as Municipal Board, Rani. The Municipal Board started functioning smoothly. Then, again the State Government vide its communication dated 22. 8. 1991 issued under Section 4 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 converted the Municipality into Gram Panchayat and the same has been placed on record as Annex. 6. This order Annex. 6 is sought to be challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. The challenge in this writ petition is that once the Municipality has been constituted then it cannot be reverted back from Municipality to Gram Panchayat and for converting the Municipality into Gram Panchayat the procedure contained in the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 has to be followed, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed. In support thereof the learned counsel has invited my attention to Vishwa Nath vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (1) and it was also pointed out that this kind of change from Municipality to Gram Panchayat is not warranted and in support there of learned counsel has invited my attention to Raghunath Pandey and Others Ms state of Bihar and others (2) and A. Laxmana Murthy & Others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh Then again subsequent to Annex. 6 an order was issued whereby the notification dated 22. 8. 1991 Annex. 6 was sought to be revoked by the order dated 19. 12. 1992 meaning thereby they restored back the Municipal Board Rani. This order has been challenged by filing writ petition by petitioner Ghisu Lal i. e. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 111/1993. Both these writ petitions were tagged and heard together. The simple question is that if the order dated 22. 8. 1991 is quashed by which the Municipality was converted into Gram Panchayat then automatically the second writ petition filed by Ghisu Lal petitioner has to be dismissed as in this writ petition the order dated 22. 8. 1991 which was revoked is being challenged. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order Annex. 6 in absolutely illegal. Once the Municipality is already functioning and if the Municipality is reverted back as Gram Panchayat then it could only be done by following the procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. In this connection, learned counsel has invited my attention to a direct judgement delivered by this Court in the case of Vishwa Nath referred to above wherein an identical question came up for consideration before this Court and it was observed as under : "by invoking powers under the provisions made in Sec. 4 (1) including its proviso, of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, the State Government cannot convert any area of a Municipality into a Gram Panchayat. In other words, no area of a Municipality functioning under the Municipalities Act can be converted into a village Panchayat either by including or excluding any area in or from any Municipality, or constituting existing Municipality, under the provision of the Municipalities Act, simply by issuing a notification under Sec. 4 of the Municipalities Act. In order to establish a new Gram Panchayat of an area, which was part of the Municipality or to add any area to a Gram Panchayat, which was earlier an area covered by a Municipality, the State Government is required to follow the procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. . . Held in the circumstances, the notification converting the Municipality of Mandrela town into the village Panchayat under the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act was liable to be quashed as being outside the scope of Sec. 4. "
(3.) SIMILAR is the question here. Here the Municipality is sought to be converted into Gram Panchayat by taking resort to Section 4 of the Act of 1959. This action of the respondent is ultra vires of Section 4 of the Act of 1959 as this is not permissible under Section 4 of the Act of 1959 and the provision applicable to such conversion is the provision of Rajasthan Panchayat Act. No resort has been taken to the provisions of the Panchayat Act. Therefore, the action of the respondent taken under Section 4 of the Act of 1959 is without jurisdiction and the order dated 22. 8. 1991 deserves to be quashed. However, the Government has already revoked this order by notification dated 19. 12. 1992, which is the subject matter of writ petition filed by Ghisu Lal. As it has already been found that the order Annex. 6 passed by the State Government is without jurisdiction and which the Government has already revoked. There fore, the writ petition filed by Ghisu Lal cannot stand. Mr. Mehta learned counsel has also invited my attention to the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Raghunath Pandey ( supra) and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A. Laxmana Murthy (supra) and there also similar question was agitated and such act has not found favour with by both the courts. Hence, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4684 of 1991 : Nagar Palika Karamchari Sangh Rani vs. State of Rajasthan & others is allowed and the order Annex. 6 dated 22. 8. 1991 is quashed which the Government has already revoked by the order dated 19. 12. 1992. The writ petition filed by Ghisu Lal has no merit and the same is dismissed. . ;