Judgment S.D. Agarwala, J. 1. THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. THE petitioners Bhola Nath Gupta and M/s. Gupta Auto Service (Allahabad) Private Limited, Allahabad, filed a suit No. 163 of 1968 in the court of the Civil Judge, Allahabad, against Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, and Sri Mahmood Butt, I. A. S., for specific performance of the contract. During the pendency of the suit, an application was made by the plaintiff petitioners that the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, has been superseded by the State of Uttar Pradesh and as such, all the properties of the Nagar Mahapalika have vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, accordingly, the State of Uttar Pradesh may be impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit. This application was contested by the Nagar Mahapalika on the ground that the Nagar Mahapalika had not been superseded, Sri Mahmood Butt was the Administrator and the properties of the Nagar Mahapalika have not vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, as such, it is not necessary for the State of Uttar Pradesh to be made a party to the suit. It was further alleged that the suit had been filed in 1968 and the application has been made for impleading the State of Uttar Pradesh after ten years on 7th December, 1978. THE application, therefore, was clearly belated and mala fide with a purpose of delaying the decision of the suit, as the plaintiff petitioners had obtained an injunction order restraining the Nagar Mahapalika from demolishing the constructions. The trial court rejected the application by an order dated 13th December, 1978. Against the said order, a Civil Revision No. 472 of 1978 was filed by the petitioners in the court of the District Judge, Allahabad. The revision was also dismissed on 20th February, 1979. The order dated 20th February, 1979, has now been impugned in the present writ petition. 3. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has urged that in view of the provisions of Section 539 (2) (c) of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, all the properties of the Nagar Mahapalika have vested in the State and, as such, the State is a necessary party and the courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction in rejecting the application moved by the petitioners. 4. 4. I have heard Sri Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika. Sri Mohiley has urged that the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, has not been superseded, but it has only been dissolved and the management has been taken over by the Administrator appointed by the State Government and as such, the application moved by the petitioners is wholly misconceived. Section 538 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) empowers the State Government to dissolve a Mahapalika where it finds that the Mahapalika is not competent to perform or persistently makes default in the performance of the duties imposed upon it by or under the Act. Section 539 (1) and (2) (c) is as under : "539. Power of State Government to supersede Mahapalika :- (1) If after dissolution the Mahapalika the reconstituted Mahapalika also appears to the State Government to be not competent to perform or to persistently make default in the performance of duties imposed upon it by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force or to exceed or abuse its powers more than once the State Government may, after having given the Mahapalika an opportunity to show cause why such order should not be made, by an order published with the reasons therefor in the official Gazette supersede the Mahapalika for a period of one year. (2) When an order of supersession is made under sub-section (1), the following consequences shall ensue ; (a)...... (b)...... (c) all property vested in the Mahapalika shall during the period of supersession1, vest in the State. (d)...... (e)...... (f) . . . . . . 5. FROM a reading of Section 539 of the Adhiniyam, it is clear that if after the dissolution of the Nagar Mahapalika under Section 538, the State Government is of the opinion that the Mahapalika should be superseded then alone an order of supersession can be passed by the State Government after giving an opportunity to show cause why such an order of supersession be not made. There is a clear distinction drawn in the Adhiniyam between dissolution of a Nagar Mahapalika and supersession of a Nagar Mahapalika. There is a clear distinction drawn in the Adhiniyam between dissolution of a Nagar Mahapalika and supersession of a Nagar Mahapalika. So far as the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, is concerned on 17th September, 1974, the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika (Alpakalik Vyavastha) Adhyadesh, 1974 (U. P. Ordinance No. 16 of 1974) was promulgated by the Governor by virtue of which the Nagar Pramukh, the Up Nagar Pramukh, the Sabhasads, the Vishista Sadashyas and the members of all Committees, Special Committees, Joint Committees and Sub-Committees and the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari of the Nagar Mahapalika of Allahabad shall vacate their respective offices, and all such Committees, special Committees, Joint Committees and Sub-Committees were dissolved. After dissolution, the Administrator was appointed and he was to be deemed, in law, to be the Mahapalika, the Nagar Pramukh, the Up-Nagar Pramukh, such Committee or the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, as the occasion may require. U. P. Ordinance No. 16 of 1974 was, thereafter, repealed by U. P. Act No. 13 of 1975. The Uttar Pradesh Urban Local-Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 and the provisions of the Ordinance were incorporated in the Act with effect from 17th September, 1974. Section 3 of the said Amending Act (sub-clauses (a) and (b) only), which are relevant for the purposes of this case, is as under : "3. The Uttar Pradesh Urban Local-Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 and the provisions of the Ordinance were incorporated in the Act with effect from 17th September, 1974. Section 3 of the said Amending Act (sub-clauses (a) and (b) only), which are relevant for the purposes of this case, is as under : "3. Temporary provisions regarding administration of Mahapalika of Allahabad :- On and from ;the seventeenth day of September, 1974, notwithstanding anything contained in the Principal Act- (a) the Nagar Pramukh, the Up-Nagar Pramukh, the Sabhasads, the Vishistha Sadasyas and the members of all Committees, Special Committees, Joint Committees and Sub-Committees (constituted or appointed under Sections 5, 95 and 97 of the said Act) and the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari of the Mahapalika of Allahabad shall vacate their respective offices, and all such Committees, Special Committees, Joint Committees and Sub-Committees shall stand dissolved ; (b) until the due re-constitution of the new Mahapalika under Section 9 of the said Act, all powers, functions and duties of the said Mahapalika, its Nagar Pramukh, Up-Nagar Pramukh, and of Committees referred to in Section 5 of the said Act and the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari shall be vested in and be exercised, performed and discharged by an officer re-appointed in that behalf by the State Government (hereinafter referred to as the Administrator) and the Administrator shall be deemed in law to be the Mahapalika, the Nagar Pramukh, the Up Nagar Pramukh, such Committee or the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, as the occasion may require." FROM a reading of sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Section 3 of the Amending Act, it is clear that the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, was only dissolved and not superseded. Since the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, was only dissolved and not superseded the provisions of Section 539 of the Adhiniyam did not come into force at all and, as such, the question of applicability of Section 539 (2) (c) of the said Adhiniyam does not arise. The property of the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, did therefore, not vest in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Since the property of the Nagar Mahapalika continues to be that of the Nagar Mahapalika and has not vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the State of Uttar Pradesh was not a necessary party in the suit. The view, therefore, taken by the courts below cannot be said to be manifestly erroneous. 6. Since the property of the Nagar Mahapalika continues to be that of the Nagar Mahapalika and has not vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the State of Uttar Pradesh was not a necessary party in the suit. The view, therefore, taken by the courts below cannot be said to be manifestly erroneous. 6. THE petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. THE suit has been pending since 1968. THE trial court shall take steps to expeditiously dispose of the suit. THE interim order dated 2nd July, 1979, is hereby discharged. Petition dismissed.