P.V. Dixit, J.

1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, who is the President of the Ratlam Municipal Council, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the State Government in August 1967 suspending the operation of its earlier order made on 16th May 1967 declaring that the respondent No.3 Shabbirkhan had ceased to be a member of the Council on account of his absence from the meetings of the Municipal Council during three successive months without obtaining leave of the Municipal Council.

2. The matter arises thus. The existing Ratlam Municipal Council is a body constituted under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954. It is a body which is continuing under section 2 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, which repealed inter alia the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954. The petitioner and the respondent No.3 Shabbirkhan were elected as Councillors when the Ratlam Municipal Council was constituted under the Madhya Bharat Act. After the coming into force of the 1961 Act they continued to remain members of the Council by virtue of section 2 (2) of the 1961 Act. Section 14 of the Madhya Bharat Act provided that if any Councillor during the term for which he has been elected or appointed absents himself during three successive months from the meetings of the Municipality except with the leave of the Municipality, then he shall subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) be disabled from continuing to be a Councillor and his office shall become vacant. Sub-section (3) of section 14 was in the following terms:–

"In every case, the authority competent to decide whether a vacancy bas occurred under this section shall be the Government in the case of a city Municipality and the Inspector-General of Municipalities in the case of other Municipalities. The decision may be given either on any application made by any person or suo motu. Until the Government or the Inspector-General of Municipalities, as the case may be, decides that the vacancy has arisen, the Councillor shall not be disabled under sub-section (2) from continuing to be a Councillor.

Provided that no order shall be passed under this sub-section against any Councillor without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard."

On 16th May 1967 the Government passed an order in the exercise of its powers under section 14 (3) declaring that the non-applicant No.3 Shabbirkhan had ceased to be a Councillor on account of his absence during these successive months from the meetings of the Municipality without the leave of the Municipality and that a vacancy had arisen.

3. It appears that in August 1967 Shabbirkhan filed an application before the Government for a review of its order dated 16.5.1967. On this review application being filed the Government passed the following order which has been impugned in this petition:–

^^fo”k;%& Jh ‘kCchj[kka] ik”kZn uxjikfydk jryke dk in fjDr ?kksf”kr djus ckcrA

lanHkZ%& bl foHkkx dk i`”Bys[k dzekad 3A84A659A18 & uxj nkS fnukad 16-5-1967A

mijksDr vkns’k ds iqufoZyksdu ckcr Jh ‘kCchj[kka us ‘kklu dks vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k gSA ‘kklu us vkns’k fn;k gS fd muds vkosnu i= ij fu.kZ; gksus rd mijksDr vkns’k fnukad 16 ebZ 1967 dks LFkfxr j[kk tk;A vr% vfUre vkns’k gksus rd Jh ‘kCchj[kka] uxjikfydk jryke ds lnL; cusa jgsaxsA rnuqlkj uxjikfydk jryke dks rqjUr lwfpr fd;k tkosA izdj.k ls lEcfU/kr dkxtkr Hkh ‘kh?kz bl foHkkx dks Hkstus dk d”V djsaA**

This order stayed the operation of the order dated 16th May 1967 and also said that till the final decision of Shabbirkhan's review petition, he would continue to be a Councillor of the Ratlam Municipal Council The applicant contends that under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954, the Government has no power to review an order passed under section 14 (3), much less to stay the operation of the order disabling the person concerned from continuing to be a Councillor and creating a vacancy. The petitioner says that the impugned order was pa