Saikia, J.- The Writ petition in Civil Rules 57-0574/81 Impugned common and another corresponding order and involve common questions of Law and facts and hence are heard and disposed of together. The Chief Executive Councillor of the Marigaon Makhuma Parishad issued a notice dated 2.5.81 inviting tenders by 3.6.81 for its hats and bazars for one year from 1.7.81 to 30.6.82, fixing minimum rates for each per month. The writ petitioners and the respondent No. 5 in each peti­tion, along with others, submitted valid tenders in time. The Executive Committee of the Morigaon Makhuma Parishad (for brevity, the Parishad) met on 19.6.81, took up settle­ment of the hats and bazars and after discussion two propo­sals emerged, namely (1) to settle with the highest tenderer, and (2) to select tenders, not necessarily highest, on merits. When put to vote three voted in favour of the (1) while 4 voted in favour of the (2). The meeting was then adjourned to 20.6.81. It seems Executive Committee met on 22.6.81 where at the groups remained the same, four Councillors supporting the pro­posal (2) and selecting the tenders of respondents No. 5, while 3 Councillors supporting proposal (1) and selecting the petiti­oner's tenders. The Chief Executive Councillor supported pro­posal (1) Under Rule 1 of the Assam Panchayati Raj (Adminis­trative) Rules, 1973, (for brevity, "the Rules") for any meeting of the Executive Committee, half of the total number of mem­bers shall form the quorum, and decision of majority in a meeting shall be binding. It is admitted that quorum was there in these meetings. On 27.6.81 the four Councillors who supported proposal (2) sent a representation to the Hon'ble Minister, Panchayat complaining that the Chief Executive Councillor was going against the Majority view, and praying for direction that the majority view be given effect to. It transpires, the Secretary of the Parishad also sent Memo. No. MMP. 126/80-81/15 dated 28.6.81 to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Community Development, pointing out the difficulties for him as follows : The Executive Committee could not come to an unanimous decision in selecting the tenderers, except in few cases, where an unanimous decision was arrived at. The Chief Executive Councillor and three other Executive Councillor are in favour of the highest valid rates, whereas four other Executive Councillors decided otherwise. The Chief Executive Councillor and three other Executive Councillor are in favour of the highest valid rates, whereas four other Executive Councillors decided otherwise. Again, in some cases, the Chief Executive Councillor and the Deputy Chief Executive Councillor have changed the bidders and decided to settle with the bidders so chosen up, not at their own quoted rates, but at the rates quoted by the high­est valid tenderers. But this has vehmently been opposed by the other Executive Councillors. Now the C.E.C. is insisting that his order be carried out." Then came the following impugned W.T. Message dated 30.6.81 from the Deputy Secy. to the Govt. of Assam Panchayat and C.D. Deptt., to the Secretary to the Parishad for nece­ssary action, with a copy to Md. Saidul Islam. W. T. Message To : Chief Executive Councillor Mahkuma Parishad, Marigaon Info : Secretary Mahkuma Parishad Morigaon, Sub-Disional, Morigaon From : DEVSC DISPUR No. PDA. 265/81/18 Reference representation of twenty-seventh June by Saidul Islam and others (.) Please Act on Majo­rity decision taken in Executive Committee Meeting hald ninteenth June, 1981, as it conforms to Rule 28(4) of the Apr (Admini­stration) Rule 1 (ii) of Assam Panchayati Raj (Admn) Rules 1973 (.) Please settle markets accordingly and realise kist money (.) Please forward proceedings selecting such tenders in respect of for taking further action (.) This instruction shall not prejudice further Govt. action in the matter and Govt. power to entertain and dispose appeals. Thereafter the impugned letters were issued informing res-pendent No. 5 each petition that his tender for the respective hat or bazar has been accepted, and requiring deposit within seven days 25% of the three months kist money as security, to exe-cut lease, deed, and to pay three months kist money by 15.8.81, else alternative arrangement would be made. The petitioner avers that though the letter of acceptance is dated 23.6.81, it was actually issued after the impugned W. T. message was issued. The respondent No. 5 in his counter states that the acceptance letter which was prepared on 23.6.81 in terms of the decision of the Executive Committee meeting dated 22.6.81 was not issued by the Secretary till 30.3.81 as he was preven­ted by the Chief Executive Councillor from doing so. Mr. The respondent No. 5 in his counter states that the acceptance letter which was prepared on 23.6.81 in terms of the decision of the Executive Committee meeting dated 22.6.81 was not issued by the Secretary till 30.3.81 as he was preven­ted by the Chief Executive Councillor from doing so. Mr. P. K. Goswami, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, inter alia, that the basis of the impugned letter of acceptance was the impugned W. T. message from the Deputy Secretary, Inasmuch as there was no decision to settle the hats and bazars and so both are liable to be quashed; and that the State Government being the appellants or revisional authority against a settlement order it acted malafide in pending the impugned W. T. message containing direction as regards settlement; and hence appeal or revision before the State Government would be futile. Mr. N. M. Lahiri, the learned Advocate General, Meghalaya counters submitting, inter alia, that there being an alternative remedy by way of appeal or revision before the State Government, this petition Is not maintainable; that the impugned W.T. message does not contain any instruction as to settlement, but only an advice to decide according to majority ; and that in view of the provisions of Section 129 (1) (d) the advice can not lie held to be malafide. In Abdul Samad vs. The Executive Committee of the Marigaon Mahkuma Parishad, AIR 1981 Gau. 15 , Hon'ble Lahiri J., relying on the two bench decisions in Pithu Ram Deka vs. The State of Assam, Civil Rule 471 of 1975 disposed of on 5.9.75 and in Lachhi Ram Choudhury vs. Chief Executive Councillor Kokrajhar Mahkuma Parishad disposed on 9.11.78 held that any person aggrieved by an order of settlement of a bazar, or hat passed by the Executive Committee of Mahkuma Parishad has a statutory right to file an application for revision against the impugned order and that the revisional authority under sec­tion 138(2) of the Act may appreciate evidence, consider facts as appellate/revisional authority but this Court's powers under Art, 226 are limited and in that view of the matter, his Lord­ship refused to exercise the writ discretion. Mr. Mr. Goswami's submission as to the W. T. Message itself providing the basis for issue of the acceptance letter is doubtful in view of the proceedings of the meetings of 19.6.81 and 22.6.81 and the contents of the Secretary's letter to the Government There having already been a majority decision in the meeting of 19.6.81 and the basis of the decision having not been changed in the meeting of 22.6.81 as per Rule 1 of Rules, it could not be said that the letter of acceptance prepared on 23.6.81 but Issued on 30.4.81 was not founded on those proceeding but on the W T. Message dated 30.6.81. Once the proceedings culmi­nated in settlement order of the Executive Committee, aggrieved parties have to resort to revisional jurisdiction under section 138 (2) of the Act, and ordinarily writ petition will not lie against a pre-settlement order or action. The impugned W.T. message only contains the advice to act according to majority decision which the Executive Com­mittee was even otherwise bound to do under the law. The advice also was not given suo motu but being sought by the Secretary, had also, perhaps, by the four Councillors forming majority, as to what should be done under the circumstances. The W.T. message also specifically said that the instruction should not prejudice further Govt. action in the matter and Government's power to entertain and dispose of appeals. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the innocuous instruction cannot be held to be malafide so as to make any revision under Section 138 (2) futile or nugatory. It may, however, be observed that it would be safe to treat the powers under sections 129 (1) (d) and 138 of the Act as mutually exclusive in the sense that no advice under section 129 (1)(d) should be given by the State Government in a matter which would be subject to appeal or revision before it under section 138. For the reasons discussed above, the petitions are found to be without merit and are dismissed without costs. The rules are discharged and the stay orders stand vacated. For the reasons discussed above, the petitions are found to be without merit and are dismissed without costs. The rules are discharged and the stay orders stand vacated. Should the petitioners decide now to resort to sections 138 (2), there is no reasons why the Revisional authority should not condone the delay caused by the time taken by the writ peti­tions in the High Court, and decide the revisions on merits quite uninfluenced by what was instructed in the W.T. Message. Petitions dismissed.