JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - Chhapada Grama Panchayat through its Sarpanch is the Petitioner. The 'Hat' (market) at Jayapur sits twice a week on Monday and Friday and is within the jurisdiction of Chhapada Grama Panchayat. On 16th August 1961 the management of Jayapur 'Hat' was transferred to Chhapada Grama Panchayat and since then the Petitioner is in management. The income of the 'Hat' has been indicated to be rising from year to year. The figures of income supplied for the years 1965-66 to 1967-68 indicate the same. The Block Development Officer, Jagatsinghpur, issued a notice on 11th April 1969 saying that Jayapur Hat would be put to public auction on lath April 1969. The Chhapada Grama Panchayat was not called upon to show cause as to why the management of the 'Hat' should not be taken from the Grama Panchayat. The Petitioner approached the Collector but he did not intervene. 2. The Petitioner's case is that the Sub-divisional Officer did not find that the income derived from the 'Hat' was inadequate and consequently he had no jurisdiction to interfere with the management of the property. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties. There is no averment therein that the Sub-divisional Officer found the income from the 'Hat' to be inadequate. 3. On the aforesaid averments, the undisputed facts stand thus. Jayapur 'Hat' is being directly managed by the Chhapada Grama Panchayat and the Sub-divisional Officer did not make an enquiry nor did he record any finding that the income derived from the directly managed 'Hat' was inadequate. 4. On these facts Mr. Mohanty contends that the taking away of the management by the Sub-divisional Officer is without jurisdiction. Rule 87(b) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, 1968, runs thus: 87(b). The Sub-Divisional Officer may, if he finds that the income derived from directly-managed properties is inadequate, shall direct that the property shall be leased out by public auction. We would point out that there is a mistake in the rule in that it contains 2 words "may" and shall one of them must necessarily be omitted). The rule thus confers jurisdiction on the Sub-divisional Officer to lease out directly managed properties of the Grama Panchayat by public auction. We would point out that there is a mistake in the rule in that it contains 2 words "may" and shall one of them must necessarily be omitted). The rule thus confers jurisdiction on the Sub-divisional Officer to lease out directly managed properties of the Grama Panchayat by public auction. But before such power is exercised a condition precedent must be fulfilled, that is he must come to a conclusion that the income derived from the directly managed property was inadequate. Such conclusion must necessarily rest on an objective determination of facts which presupposes an enquiry; and once the rights of the Grama Panchayat to manage the properties are to be taken away, it would be entitled to a hearing and to give evidence that the income was not inadequate. The Sub-Divisional Officer did not resort to such a course. His action was therefore wholly arbitrary and contrary to the directions contained in Rule 87 (b). 5. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer directing that the sale would take place pursuant to the notice issued on 11th April 1969 is quashed. 6. In the result, the writ application is allowed with costs. A writ of mandamus be issued to the opposite parties not to interfere with the management of Jayapur 'Hat' without complying with the requirements of Rule a7(b). Hearing fee Re. 100/- (One hundred only). R.N. Misra, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed