(1) SINCE we are unable to agree with each other for the reasons recorded by us separately, the papers may be placed before Honble chief justice of India for directions regarding listing of the same for hearing and disposal before another bench. THAKKAR (2) MY reasons for concurring with the view taken by the High court that the impugned notice (affording opportunity to show cause against proposed supersession) as per Annx. II dated 9/05/1976 (at p. 37 of the Special Leave Petition paper book) does not deserve to be quashed are four viz. : (1) The notice is not without jurisdiction in the sense that the State government is empowered under proviso to S. 402(2) read with the relevant provisions to issue such a notice. (2) The issuance of such notice is neither illegal nor does it occasion any prejudice or detriment to the petitioner or to the councillors or to the Municipal council so as to justify the quashing of the notice. (3) To accede to the submission of the appellant is to hold that no municipal council can be superseded at all once it is suspended or that no municipal council can be suspended once it is sought to be superseded even if it is guilty of misuse. And to hold so when the statute in terms says that this can be done if warranted by the circumstances. (4) Suspension of municipal council is to the limited extent contemplated by the Act. It does not take away the power of municipal council to reply to a show cause notice since the relevant provisions themselves contemplate exercise of such powers. Only the powers specifically mentioned in the notification are taken away and not "all" powers or functions of the Act. The power to reply to show cause notice is in terms preserved by the scheme of the relevant sections. There is no warrant for importing general notions about suspension in the teeth of scheme of the relevant provisions of the Act. (3) BY the impugned notice the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and the councillors of the concerned Municipal council have been called upon to show cause as to why the Municipal council should not be superseded, in exercise of powers under Section 402(1) of the Orissa Municipalities Act. (3) BY the impugned notice the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and the councillors of the concerned Municipal council have been called upon to show cause as to why the Municipal council should not be superseded, in exercise of powers under Section 402(1) of the Orissa Municipalities Act. The notice in question has been issued in exercise of powers under the proviso to S. 402(2) which reads thus : 402(2) Before publishing a notification under Ss. (1) the State government shall follow the procedure laid down in Ss. (2) of S. 401 : PROVIDED that if upon the report of the District Magistrate or the Director the State government are of the opinion that the Municipal council is also acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the inhabitants of the municipality or is misusing the municipal funds they may at any time before asking the Municipal council to show cause suspend the said council till finalisation of proceedings under this section. (4) FROM an analysis of the relevant provisions following propositions emerge: (I) Before a Municipal council is superseded, it must be afforded an opportunity to show cause against the proposed supersession. (II) But even before the notice to show cause against the proposed supersession is issued, it is open to the State government to suspend the Municipal council in case it is satisfied that the Municipal council is acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the inhabitants or is misutilising the municipal funds etc. (III) The concerned statutory provision [proviso to S. 402(2)] itself contemplates and authorizes suspension before issuance of notice to show cause against supersession. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the impugned show cause notice as per Annx. II is illegal and liable to be quashed. (5) WHEN the statute itself provides that there can be suspension before the issuance of the show cause notice to the Municipal council, by necessary implication, it means that the power of the Municipal council to show cause against the proposed action remains intact. When the legislature in terms authorises the suspension of the Municipal council and the statute itself contemplates giving of a notice to show cause why it should not be superseded subsequent to the suspension and notwithstanding the suspension, how can the notice contemplated by the provision be quashed on the ground that compliance is not possible after suspension ? When the legislature in terms authorises the suspension of the Municipal council and the statute itself contemplates giving of a notice to show cause why it should not be superseded subsequent to the suspension and notwithstanding the suspension, how can the notice contemplated by the provision be quashed on the ground that compliance is not possible after suspension ? The effect of suspension is set out in S. 402(5) which provides that during the period of suspension "all or any of the powers and duties of the Municipal council may be discharged by the official appointed in .that behalf". As per the notification for suspension all that has been done is to authorize the official appointed in that behalf "to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the said council". (See p. 6 of the Special Leave Petition paper book and the judgment.) This notification has to be read in a harmonious manner with the statutory provision contained in S. 402(2) proviso. The notification cannot wipe out or take away the power to call upon the Municipal council to show cause or impair the power of the Municipal council. The notification cannot and does not render the statutory provision ineffective. It would mean that the power to reply to the show cause notice has not been taken away from the suspended Municipal council. What has been taken away are the powers and duties other than the matter pertaining to showing cause against the supersession which is a right conferred on the Municipal council under S. 402(2) proviso. The view taken by the High court is therefore unexceptionable. Besides it is difficult to comprehend what prejudice or detriment would be suffered by the petitioner who is one of the Municipal councillors if the Municipal council shows cause against the proposed supersession. If they do not want to show cause, they are not compelled to do so. If they show cause and the cause shown is found to be satisfactory, the supersession may not take place. Undoubtedly S. 402(2) proviso contemplates the issuance of a show cause notice before supersession. If they do not want to show cause, they are not compelled to do so. If they show cause and the cause shown is found to be satisfactory, the supersession may not take place. Undoubtedly S. 402(2) proviso contemplates the issuance of a show cause notice before supersession. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the notice is without jurisdiction or is issued by an authority who had no jurisdiction to issue it or that the impugned notice which does no more than enable the petitioner to show cause would occasion any prejudice or detriment so as to justify the exercise of powers under Articles 226-227 of the Constitution of India or the powers of this court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. I am therefore of the opinion that the petition for special leave deserves to be dismissed. B. C. RAY (6) I am unable to agree with the views expressed by my learned brother and, therefore, my reasons are as follows. (7) THE notice to show cause why the Municipal council will not be superseded has been issued by the authorities concerned a Municipal Committee which has undoubtedly been suspended by an order dated 19/03/1986 and the order of suspension at the time of issuance of the notice to show cause why it should not be superseded dated the 9/05/1986 is actually in force and the municipality is under suspension. It is also evident from the averments made in the application under Article 136 of the Constitution of India that the Municipal council has already challenged the order of suspension in OJC No. 1051 of 1986 before the High court of Orissa and that rule is pending for decision till now. The notice of supersession has been issued to show cause against the order of suspension by the authorities concerned. It is also very clear that immediately on the passing of the order of suspension a Sub-diyisional Officer has been appointed as an Administrator to discharge the functions, duties and responsibilities which are vested in the Municipal council. Therefore, it is quite clear and apparent that the Municipal council is under suspension and has no legal right to hold any meeting for the purpose of considering any matter and taking any resolution whatsoever. Therefore, it is quite clear and apparent that the Municipal council is under suspension and has no legal right to hold any meeting for the purpose of considering any matter and taking any resolution whatsoever. Therefore, in these circumstances, a Municipal Committee which is admittedly under suspension, how can be served with a notice to show cause why it will not be superseded because whatever reply has to be given by the Municipal Committee must be the reply of the Municipal council as a whole and it is quite clear and admitted position that a Municipal council cannot adopt a reply which has to be given to the show cause notice unless the same is determined by holding a meeting of all Municipal councillors and a decision or resolution arrived at. It is quite apparent that the Municipal council under suspended animation cannot function at all for any purpose whatsoever and in the eye of law the Municipal council is no longer able to function till the order of suspension is removed or rescinded. So in that view of the matter in my considered opinion issuance of the show cause notice to show cause why the Municipal council will not be superseded is meaningless because it cannot be said that it amounts to an order giving an opportunity to a body which is no longer functioning as it is under suspension. The notice becomes meaningless and such a notice cannot be issued in view of the broad fact that the Municipal council cannot hold Meeting to consider the said show cause notice and to pass appropriate resolution which they can send in reply to the show cause notice against the supersession. Under the circumstances, it is a fit case where this court should interfere, otherwise the principles of audi alteram partem will have no meaning at all and it will be an empty formality.