( 1 ) THE short and significant question arises for consideration is : "whether the Collector has power, authority or jurisdiction under S. 258 of the gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, to suspend a Resolution passed by the municipality which has been executed or implemented ?"

( 2 ) A Division Bench of this Court in H. H. Parmar v. Collector, Rajkot, reported in [1979 (2)] XX (2) GLR 97, interpreted S. 258 (1) of the Gujarat municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Gujarat Act) in juxtaposition of S. 34 (1-B) of the U. P. Act relying on the decision of Apex Court in Municipal board, Kannauj v. State of U. P. , reported in AIR 1971 SC 2147 holding that if a resolution has been fully executed it cannot be suspended by the Collector because there is nothing in it which could be suspended. Learned single Judge (Coram : c. K. Thakker, J.) while considering interim relief in Special Civil Application under reference felt that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Parmars case (supra) requires reconsideration for the reasons stated in order of reference.

( 3 ) ). To appreciate the controversy raised it would be appropriate to notice few relevant facts. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Mistry in the year 1983 by the respondent No. 3 Limbdi Municipality. He was transferred as Bus Clerk in december, 1994. He was placed as In-Charge Octroi Inspector and by Resolution no. 176 dated 13-12-1994 he was appointed as Octroi Inspector on permanent basis with retrospective effect from 10-12-1994. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Electric Motor Pump Driver in 1984. He was transferred as In-Charge Water works Supervisor and by Resolution No. 176, he was appointed as Water Works supervisor on permanent basis. The Resolution was set aside by the impugned order dated 3-5-1995 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar. The said order has been confirmed by the order of the State Government dated 22-9-1995. Both the orders have been challenged on the ground that the impugned orders are illegal, as S. 258 does not empower the Collector to suspend executed resolution.

( 4 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in Parmars case (supra) has interpreted s. 258 (1) of the Act of 1963 in juxtaposition of S. 34 (1-B) of the U. P. Act. Thus, it would be necessary to acquaint with the said provisions. For ready reference both the provisions are quoted hereinbelow :- section 258 (1) of the Gujarat Act : if, in the opinion of the Collector, the execution of any order or resolution of a municipality, or the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of a Municipality, is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or to lead 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 and where the execution of any work in pursuance of the order or resolution of the Municipality is already commenced or completed direct the municipality to restore the position in which it was before the commencement of "section 34 (1-B) of the U. P. Act : the State Government may of its own motion or on report or complaint received by order prohibit the execution or further execution of a resolution or order passed or made under this or any other enactment by a board or a committee of a board or a joint committee, or any officer or servant of a board or of a joint committee if in its opinion such resolution or order is prejudicial to the public interest and may prohibit the doing or continuance by any person of any act in pursuance of or under cover of such resolution or order.

( 5 ) READING of S. 34 (1-B) of the U. P. Act shows that the State Government is empowered to prohibit the execution or further execution of the Resolution or order or doing or continuance of any person of any act in pursuance of or under cover of such Resolution or order. It does not provide for a situation for intervention by d