JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been running a small scale power industry with a five H. P. electric motor for wood cutting and welding, at premises No. 1047/37-A, V Cross, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore-4, with license from the municipality, for the past about ten years. Respondent No. 3 has been constantly presenting petitions to the Municipal Council and also to the higher authorities against the renewal of the license of the petitioner. When the application for its renewal for the year 1966-67 came up for consideration, it was rejected by the Commissioner, but, on appeal to the Council, the renewal was accorded. Aggrieved by the ord er of renewal, respondent No. 3 presented a petition to the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division. ( 2 ) THE Divisional Commissioner who is the first respondent before us, called for a report from the Municipal Commissioner as to whether the running of the industry by the petitioner is a nuisance to the public or not. The report submitted was in favour of the petitioner in which it was stated that the licensee has not been running any industry other than the one stipulated in the license granted by the Municipality and that there is no nuisance caused to the public by running the industry. The Commissioner, however, opined that the industry should be shifted to the Industrial suburb as soon as possible. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the Divisional Commissioner heard Counsel for both the parties and passed the order impugned in the present writ petition. The Commissioner apparently based his order on the ground that all industries should be located as per the "canons of urban planning"' and that it would be wrong to locate small or big industries in residential areas. He, therefore, passed the impugned order, the operative portion of which reads thus: :but considering all the circumstanies, it seems just that he should shift before the end of March 1969. The licensing authority will examine the imposition of a condition to this effect, if it decides to renew the license for the year 1968-69 making it clear that the license will not be renewed beyond 31-3-1969 at its present location on any account. Whether amenities required by him are ready or not in the industrial area it is up to the licensee to see that these amenities are obtained by moving the authorities concerned. ( 4 ) MR. Whether amenities required by him are ready or not in the industrial area it is up to the licensee to see that these amenities are obtained by moving the authorities concerned. ( 4 ) MR. Keshava Iyengar, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the order as one having been passed without jurisdiction. To appreciate the contention, it is necessary to first refer to the provisions of S. 309 of the Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964. The said section reads:"309. Commissioner's power in respect of city municipal councils. In respect of city municipal councils, the powers conferred by sections 306, 307 and 308 shall be exercisable by the Commissioner and the provisions of the said sections shall mutatis-mutandis, apply to such city municipal councils and their councillors. " ( 5 ) NECESSARILY, we will have to turn to S. 306. This section reads:"306. Deputy Commissioner's power of suspending execution of orders, etc. , of Municipal Councils. (1) If, in the opinion of the Deputy commissioner, the execution of any order or resolution of a town municipal council, or the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of a town municipal council, is unlawful or is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public, or to lead to a breach of the peace, he may, by order in writing under his signature, suspend the execution or prohibit the doing thereof. (2) When a Deputy Commissioner makes any order under this section, he shall forthwith forward to Government and to the commissioner and to the municipal council affected thereby a copy of the order, with a statement of the reasons for making it; and it shall be in the discretion of the Government to rescind the order, or to direct that it shall continue in force with or without modification, permanently or for such period as it thinks fit; provided that no order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under this section shall be confirmed, revised or modified by the Government without giving the municipal council, a reasonable opportunity or showing cause against the said order. " ( 6 ) THE impugned order, apparently, has been nassed in the exercise of the powers vested in the Commissioner under S. 306 of the Act. Let us now pee whether the order coold be supported bv the provisions of the said section. " ( 6 ) THE impugned order, apparently, has been nassed in the exercise of the powers vested in the Commissioner under S. 306 of the Act. Let us now pee whether the order coold be supported bv the provisions of the said section. The section as set out provides for the existence of three conditions before the order could be passed by the Commissioner, and, they are: He must he of the opinion that the execution of the order or resolution of the citv Municipal Council or the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done bv or on behalf of the City Municipal Council is (i) unlawful, or (ii) is causing or is likely to cause injuiry or annoyance to the trublio or (iii) is likelv to lead to a breach of the peace. It is only when he forms his opinion about the existence of one or the other of these conditions, that he could suspend the execution or prohibit the doing of the Act complained of. ( 7 ) SUB-SEC. (2) of S. 306 provides that as soon as he makes an order, he shall immediately forward to the Government and to the Municipal Council affected thereby, a copy of his order with a statement of the reasons for making it and thereafter, the Government will have to issue notices to the persons concerned before rescinding or confirming or revising or modifying the order. In the very nature of things, it appears to us that the power vested in the Commissioner under S. 306 is only to pass an interim order and he is not invested with the power of final disposal of any dispute between the parties. ( 8 ) BUT. in the instant case, the Divisional Commissioner has passed the final order directing the Municipal Council not to issue the license in favour of the petitioner beyond 31-3-1969 and he has also stated that it is incumbent on the petitioner to shift its present industry into the industrial suburb. He has also advised the petitioner that he should take steps with the concerned authorities for obtaining the amenities required bv him in the industrial suburb. Suffice it to say that each one of the above directions was beyond the scope of the power vested in the Commissioner under section 306 of the Act. He has also advised the petitioner that he should take steps with the concerned authorities for obtaining the amenities required bv him in the industrial suburb. Suffice it to say that each one of the above directions was beyond the scope of the power vested in the Commissioner under section 306 of the Act. ( 9 ) THE contention to the contrary urged by Sri Babu cannot be accepted. Apart from that, none of the conditions precedent for passing an order to suspend the execution of the resolution of the Council or to prohibit the. doing of anything by the Council is held to exist in the present case as is apparent from the order of the Commisssioner. He has nowhere stated that the running of the factory by the petitioner causes injury or annoyance to the public, as contended for respondent No. 3 before him. On the contrary, the report from the Municipal Commissioner does not support that contention. ( 10 ) THE primary reason which motivated the Commissioner to pass the impugned order was that all industries, whether big or small, should be located in the industrial suburb. It appears to be a policy matter which the commissioner has laid down. It seems to us that while exercising the powers under S. 306, he cannot lay down any such policy for the guidance of the Municipal Council. It is wholly an extraneous consideration which has vitiated the impugned order. ( 11 ) IN the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed, quashing the impugned order Exhibit dt. 25-3-1968. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .