( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General representing the State of Gujarat, Mr. J. R. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for Smt. Nirmalaben Waghela, President, Porbandar Nagarpalika, and Mr. P. M. Thakker, learned Senior Advocate of Shri Babubhai Bokharia, Honble Minister of Irrigation, State of Gujarat, at great length and in detail.

( 2 ) THESE two Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the order and judgment dated 3rd July 2002 of a learned Single Judge, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 6091 of 2002 between Smt. Nirmalaben Waghela and State of Gujarat and another.

( 3 ) THE acts and events constituting the facts of the case, as they emerge from record, are these:exercising powers conferred upon it under Section 263 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, hereinafter called "the Act", the State of Gujarat issued to Porbandar Municipality notice dated 6th June 2002 calling upon it to show cause within fifteen days of receipt of the notice as to why it should not be declared incapable of performing duties, and why should it not be dissolved in accordance with Section 263 (1) of the Act for the reasons and facts stated in the schedule annexed thereto. FEELING aggrieved by the notice, Smt. Nirmalaben Waghela, President of Nagarpalika, not the Porbandar Nagarpalika, approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through Special Civil Application No. 6091 of 2002 beseeching the grant of, inter alia, the following main reliefs: "b. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction of a nature quashing and setting aside the Show Cause Notice dated 6. 6. 2002 bearing No. 452000/m/no. 18/m issued by the respondent - Smt. Gita Mehta, Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Development Department, Government of Gujarat, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. C. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an injunction restraining the respondent herein from further proceeding with the impugned show cause notice dated 6. 6. 2002 issued by the respondent herein and from initiating the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. D. Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent herein from further proceeding with the impugned show cause notice dated 6. 6. 2002 issued by the respondent herein and from initiating the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. "special Civil Application came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 3rd July 2002, and was heard ex parte. The learned Single Judge felt that Smt. Nirmalaben Waghela, the petitioner, had approached the Court prematurely inasmuch as the matter was only at the stage of showing cause in pursuance of the impugned notice under Section 263 (1) of the Act. He, therefore, declined to intervene and interfere with the show cause notice, and did not entertain the petition. However, while declining to entertain the petition, by the impugned order and judgment, the learned Single Judge gave certain directions, and also granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner. In the context of the controversy, it is apposite to reproduce the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd July 2002, and it is so reproduced below:-" Date of Order: 03/07/2002 ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the Show Cause Notice dtd. 6. 6. 2002, issued by the State Government under Sec. 263 (1) for the dissolution of the Porbandar Municipality. 2. Heard Mr. Nanavaty, Sr. Counsel for the petitioner with Mr. A. R. Thakkar, for the petitioner. 3. Mr. Nanavati for the petitioner submitted that, the State Government has no authority to give direction to the President of the Municipality, to convene the General Board Meeting and he further contended that, the ground mentioned in the Show Cause N