ORDER Pandey J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against certain bye-laws of the Municipal Council, Bhopal, which were published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 22nd June 1962. 2. Before the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, came into force, the Municipal Board, Bhopal, gave notice of its intention to make, under sections 302, 308 and 309 of the Bhopal Stale Municipalities Act, 1955 certain bye-laws for the purpose of obliging the bus owners to park their buses only on the Municipal Bus Stand as specified and requiring them to pay a fee for such use of the Bus Stand These proposals were published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 14 April 1961. Suggestions and objections were also required to be made within fifteen days. On 15 July 1961 the Bye-Law Committee of the Board considered the objections receive against the proposals, which were finally approved by the Board by its resolution dated 24 July 1961. Thereupon, a copy of the resolution was submitted to the State Government for confirmation as required under section 311 (2) of the Bhopal Act. It transpired that the State Government took no action in the matter until after that Act was repealed by the Madhya Pradesh Act of 1961. After the commencement of that Act, they "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (3) of section 357 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (37 of 1961)" confirmed, with some modifications, the bye-laws made by the Municipal Council, Bhopal, "under sub-clauses (f) and (m) of clause (7) of section 358 read with item (ii) of section 349 and sub-section (5) of section 357 of the said Act". These are the impugned bye-laws, which were published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 22 June 1962. Following this, the Municipal Council has been recovering from 27 June 1962 the fee prescribed by these bye-laws from bus-owners, including the petitioner. 3. The bye-laws have been challenged on numerous grounds detailed in the petition. We do not regard it necessary to consider all those grounds because we are of opinion that, in view of one of the grounds raised in the petition, the bye-laws cannot be sustained at all. 4. 3. The bye-laws have been challenged on numerous grounds detailed in the petition. We do not regard it necessary to consider all those grounds because we are of opinion that, in view of one of the grounds raised in the petition, the bye-laws cannot be sustained at all. 4. Sub-section (4) of section 357 of the 1961 Act reads: "Unless specially excepted in this Act from the operation of this sub-section, no bye-law shall take effect until it has been published in the manner prescribed by rules made under this Act." The impugned bye-laws are not excepted from the operation of the aforesaid sub-section. Further, they were not published in the manner prescribed' by the rules made under the Act. Actually, those rules were finally made on 27 August 1962 and published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 7 September 1962 after the bye-laws were confirmed by the State Government and brought into force. On the plain words of sub-section (4) the bye-laws, which were not published in the manner prescribed by the rules, cannot take effect. 5. Learned counsel for the Municipal Council relied upon sub-section 2 (2) of the 1961 Act and the First Explanation there under to sustain the validity of the bye-laws. Sub-section 2 (2) (i) declares that any bye-laws made and any other things done under the repealed Acts shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the 1961 Act, be deemed to have been made or done under that Act. The First Explanation reads: "For removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that any rules or bye-laws made or anything done under the enactments hereby repealed shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of this Act merely on the ground that the procedure followed in making such rules or bye-laws or doing such thing was different from that prescribed under this Act." The Explanation has no application because we are not examining the validity of any bye-laws made under the repealed Bhopal Act. We agree that if any bye-laws were validly made under any of the repealed Acts by following the procedure prescribed there under, the validity of those bye-laws could not be challenged on the ground that the 1961 Act prescribes a different procedure. But, as shown, the impugned bye-laws were made under the Act. We agree that if any bye-laws were validly made under any of the repealed Acts by following the procedure prescribed there under, the validity of those bye-laws could not be challenged on the ground that the 1961 Act prescribes a different procedure. But, as shown, the impugned bye-laws were made under the Act. It is, however, urged that the previous publication in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 14 April 1961, though not in accordance with the rules made under section 357 (4) of the Act, amounts to "anything done" under the repealed Act and it cannot, in view of the First Explanation, be assailed on the ground that a different procedure is prescribed under the 1961 Act for doing it. The Explanation clearly makes a distinction between "anything done" and "the procedure followed in doing such thing" and says that, notwithstanding the difference in procedure under the two Acts, the thing done shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with the 1961 Act. The procedure itself could not be regarded as "anything done" under the repealed Act to support the bye-laws made, not under that Act but under the 1961 Act. In our view, this would also be clearly inconsistent with section 357 (4) of that Act. That being so, the bye-laws cannot be sustained. 6. The result is that the petition succeeds and is allowed. The byelaws of the Municipal Council, Bhopal, published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 22nd June 1962 are quashed. The respondents are also restrained from enforcing those bye-laws. Since the Municipal Council, Bhopal, undertook to refund to the petitioner the fees collected from him, we direct that all fees so far collected from the petitioner under these bye-laws shall be paid back to him. The respondents shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the petitioner, to whom the security amount shall also be refunded. Hearing fee Rs; 100.