Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE petitioner, Bhairon Lal, is a halwai and has his shop in the main market of Rampura Bazar at Kotah. He purchased a strip of land 20x5' in front of his shop on the 16th February, 1954, from the Municipal Board and on the same day the Board granted him permission to remodel his shop and to construct a varandah in front of the same. THE petitioner started his construction. On 18. 3. 54 respondent No. 4, Rameshwar Dayal Saxena, General Secretary of the District Congress Committee, wrote to the. Sub-Divisional Officer to stop the construction as according to him the petitioner was encroaching upon the Government land and had started his construction beyond the line of the Gandhi Bhawan (Town Hall ). THE Sub-Divisional Officer purporting to act for the Collector passed an order on the same day stopping the construction and directed the petitioner to show cause on the 22nd of March 1954, why the order be not made absolute. On the 22nd March, 1954, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Mr. V. R. Bhatnagar, also gave notice to the petitioner to stop the construction as he was thereby) encroaching upon the Government land and no permission had been obtained from the Public Works Department. THE Collector was then on tour and when he returned he inspected the site, heard the parties and was of the opinion that the proposed construction was not beyond the line of the various building on the road and that under sec. 48 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, all public streets and pavements, stones and other materials thereof, and also all trees, erections, materials, implements and things provided for such stress became the property of the Municipality and there was no cause to interfere. But he observed that as an objection had been raised by the Executive Engineer, the matter may be settled at higher level and submitted the case to the Secretary to the Local Self Government Department and directed that the stay order should continue till a reply is received from the Government. The petitioner has come to this court and has urged that the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector had been led to act under pressure from Mr. Rameshwar Dayal Saxena, who was the General Secretary of the District Congress Committee and this gentleman had ill-will because the various candidates set up by the Congress in the local elections had been defeated and the petitioner happened to be in the opposite camp. The respondent No. 4, the Administrator of the Municipal Board, supported the sale and the permission granted to the petitioner for constructing a varandah and has left it to the other respondents to reply about the interference in the construction Respondent No. 1, Collector, said that he did not know about the machinations of the General Secretary of District Congress Committee but he continued the stay order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, as a claim had been made by an important Officer of the Government, namely, the Executive Engineer, that the property of which the petitioner had been granted permission belonged to the Government, and as he was unable to say whether the land belonged to the Government or to the municipality, he made a reference to the Government and continued the stay order in order to stop the breach of the peace of injury or annoyance to the public. No reply has been filed by Mr. V. R. Bhatnagar. Executive Engineer, Mr. Rameshwar Dayal Saxena and Mr. Damodar Lal, Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer is not authorised to interfere in any matter connected with the municipality and although he purported to act for the Collector in his absence, no order has been produced to show that he was authorised at the time to act as Collector. The Collector's power to interfere on which reliance is. placed is contained in sec. 195 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Ac', 1951, which is as follows : - "195. Power of suspending execution of order etc. of municipal board - If in the opinion of the Collector or any other officer appointed or authorised by the Government in this behalf the execution of any order or resolution of a municipal board, or the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of a municipal board, is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public, or to lead to a breach of the peace or is unlawful, he may, by order in writing under his signature suspend the execution or prohibit the doing thereof. (3) When a Collector or any other officer appointed or authorised by the Government in this behalf makes any order under this section, he shall forthwith forward to the Government and to the Municipal Board affected thereby, a copy of the order, with a statement of the reasons for making it; and It shall be in the discretion of Government to rescind the order, or to direct that it continue in force with or without modification, permanently or for such period as it thinks fit. Provided that no order of the Collector or any other officer appointed or authorised by the Government in this behalf passed under this section shall be confirmed, revised or modified by the Government without giving the municipal board reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the said order. " The power to interfere under the aforesaid section is restricted to suspending the execution of any order or resolution of the municipal board or the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of the municipal board or prohibiting the execution thereof. In the present case permission had been granted by the municipal board and nothing remained to be done by it. Further, the interference is only authorised in cases where carrying of the order was likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or was unlawful. In the present case none of these conditions were pointed out to the Collector and as a matter of fact he himself said on 29. 3. 54 that a case for interference under sec. 195 had not been made out. He only preferred to continue the stay order - "in order to end the present uncertainty in respect of streets and pavements which may likely to cause friction between the municipality and the Executive Engineer". At another place in his order he has referred to sec. 48 of the Town Municipalities Act which vested the ownership of public streets and pavements in the municipal board and therefore brushed aside the argument that it was the government property because repairs were being made by the Public Works Department, in the following words - "the mere fact that the repairs of pavements and roads were made by the Executive Engineer does not alter the posi-tion because the money spent on such repairs is debited to the Municipality. In the face of this finding there was no bona-fide ground for doubting the title of the municipality to the land which had been sold to the petitioner and over which the construction was sought to be made. The entire manner in which the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector proceeded leaves no room for doubt that they were actuated in passing the orders which they did, because the motion had been made by Mr. Rameshwar Dayal Saxena who happened to occupy the position of the General Secretary of the District Congress Committee. It is unfortunate that the responsible officers incharge of the administration of the district should allow themselves to be influenced by outside agencies and do not realise their responsibility in the matter. The Administrator of the Municipal Committee has frankly supported the case of the petitioner. This petition is, therefore, allowed, the order of the Collector dated the 29th March, 1954, is set aside and he is directed not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner in making the construction under proper authority. The petitioner will get his costs from respondent Nos. 1,2,4 and 5 which are assessed at Rs. 80/ -. As respondents Nos. 1, 2,4 and 5 have shown a lamentable disregard of the rights of the petitioner, they are made personally liable to pay the costs in equal proportions. . ;