( 1. ) THIS appeal is against an order of Bhutt, J. in Miscellaneous Petition No. 552 of 1956, decided on 21st February, 1957. It was referred to this Full Bench, but at the suggestion of counsel and with the concurrence of the learned Judges who made this reference the decision of the Full Bench has been confined only to the examination of the decision in Ramchandra Rai v. State of M. P. , Misc. Petn. No. 80 of 1950, D/- 10-8-1951 (A ).

( 2. ) THE Municipal Committee, Kareli was superseded by an order of the State government. Certain charges were framed and explanation of the Municipal committee was called for. The State Government after calling for a report from the Deputy Commissioner decided to supersede the Municipal Committee and passed an order to that effect. The question in the miscellaneous petition was whether the action of the State Government in superseding the Municipal committee was correct. The learned single Judge, who dealt with the miscellaneous petition, following the decision of a Division Bench in the above case : Misc. Petn. No. 80 of 1950 (A), held that it was not open to this Court to question the decision of the State government. The correctness of the Division Bench ruling, at least in one particular, was doubted by the Division Bench who made the reference. It is that point only to. which we shall address ourselves.

( 3. ) IN stating the law the earlier Division Bench of Mangalmurti and Mudholkar, JJ. observed as follows :

"in the present case the complaint made by the applicant is that in dissolving the Municipal Committee under Section 57 (1) of the C. P. Municipalities Act of 1922, the State Government acted mala fide as there were in fact no grounds upon which the Municipal Committee could be properly dissolved. The action of the State Government is wholly administrative and though in taking it they had to satisfy themselves about the necessity of doing so we do not think it appropriate to go behind the satisfaction of the State Government even though the satisfaction had to be, as the applicants learned counsel contends, objective and not merely subjective. The reason for our placing this limitation upon ourselves is that it will lead to untold inconvenience and confusion if administrative decisions are subjected to review by Courts of law as a matter of routine. In cases where, for instance, the action is mala fide or arbitrary or without jurisdiction or in utter violation of the principles of law or natural justice, we may have to review the action. We do not however think that the present case is of a kind in which we ought to review the action taken by the State Government. Here, before dissolving the committee charges were framed and communicated to that body. Their explanation was called for and considered and it was after that that the order of dissolution was passed. We, therefore, decline to consider the sufficiency or adequacy of the material upon which the charges were regarded as proved. The application must, therefore, fail. "

The objection is to the last but one sentence of these observations.

( 4. ) UNDER Sub-section (2) of Section 57 of the Central Provinces and Berar municipalities Act, 1922 it is provided as follows :

"if after fresh election the new committee continues to be incompetent to perform, or to make default in the performance of, such duties or exceeds or abuses its powers to a grave extent, the Provincial government may, by an order stating the reasons therefor published in the Gazette, declare the committee to be incompetent or in default, or to have exceeded or abused its powers, as the case may be, and supersede it for a period to be specified in the order. "

Before making the order the State Government is required to give a reasonable opportunity to the committee to furnish an explanation (Sub-section (5) of Section 57 ibid ).

( 5. ) THE short question is that where charges have been framed and the explanation of the municipal committee is in, whether the rea