Judgment :- 1. An inquiry is being conducted into certain allegations against the 1st respondent under the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895, S.7 of which enactment reads as follows: "(1) The Collector may, of his own motion or on complaint and after inquiry - (a) suspend or remove the holder of any of the offices forming sub-cls. (i), (ii) and (iii) of Class (1) in S.3, if he petitions to be adjudged as insolvent or is adjudged an insolvent; and (b) fine, suspend, dismiss or remove the holder of any of the offices forming class (1) in S.3, and suspend, dismiss or remove the holder of any of the offices forming class (3) in the said section, for misconduct or for neglect of duty or incapacity or for non-residence in the village or for any other sufficient cause. The Collector shall make a record of his reasons for passing an order under Cl. (a) or Cl. (b) and furnish a copy of the same to the village officer concerned: Provided that, when a Village Munsiff, who is also the head of the village, is suspended or removed under the Madras Village Courts Act, 1889, such suspension or removal shall involve his suspension or removal from the office of head of the village. (2) A Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar may, of his own motion or on complaint and after inquiry, fine the holder of any of the offices forming class (1) in S.3, for any of the causes specified in Cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) and in such amount as the Board of Revenue may, by general or special order, prescribe. The provisions of sub-s. (1) in regard to the recording of reasons and the furnishing of copies shall apply to proceedings taken under this sub-section". The inquiry is being conducted in pursuance of a petition filed by the petitioner before the Collector of South Canara and dated 3.9.1956. 2. On 28.10.1956 the 1st respondent was also placed under suspension by the Collector of South Canara pending investigation into his conduct. The relevant portion of the order (Ext. A) reads as follows: "It is, therefore, in the interests of justice that Sri M.P. Abdulla, Potail of North-Tricarpur, should be kept under ad-interim suspension pending further enquiry. He is accordingly kept under ad-interim suspension". 3. The relevant portion of the order (Ext. A) reads as follows: "It is, therefore, in the interests of justice that Sri M.P. Abdulla, Potail of North-Tricarpur, should be kept under ad-interim suspension pending further enquiry. He is accordingly kept under ad-interim suspension". 3. The Collector of Malabar who got jurisdiction by the formation of Kerala on 1.11.1956 has revoked the order of suspension and the complaint before me is that the said order of revocation is bad on the merits and also on the ground that the petitioner has not been heard before the revocation was ordered by the Collector. There is no allegation in the petition that the inquiry has been dropped and the only attack is as regards the cancelling of an order of suspension pending an inquiry. 4. I see no reason whatsoever for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution and the earlier it is realised that the article is not intended for purposes like this the better it will be for all concerned. 5. The petition is hereby rejected. Rejected.