The defendant Md. Sayed Ali of the Title Suit No. 5/1989 of the Court of District Judge, Goaipara has impugned the order dated 7.3. 1989 whereby the District Judge granted ad interim injunction restraining the defendant of the suit from interfering the plaintiff- respondent's right to run the Jales war Dhubri Launch (Engine Fitted) Ferry.- 2. The plaintiff respondent got settlement of, Jaleswar-Dhubri Launch (Engine Fitted) Ferry from Mahakuma Parishad for the year 1988-89 ending on 30th June, 1989 Rs. 16.000/-. The plaintiff was running the Ferry under the lease. But the Mahakuma Parishad cancelled the lease of the plaintiff on 17.2.1989 on the grounds : (1) default of payment of the 3rd kist .money ; (2) failure to deposit the lease value of the settlement in spite of demand. Annexure- of the Appeal Memo was the cancellation order/notice dated.17-2-1989. The cancellation notice/order was made, on the basis of the resolution dated 27.1.1989 adopted in the Executive Committee meeting pf the Mahakuma Parishad. After cancellation, the Ferry was leased out to the defendant No. 3 for the remaining period ending on 30th June, 1989. 3. The plaintiff respondent had instituted the suit stating that he deposited Rs. 8,000/- at a time immediately with the grant of settlement/lease and deposited the lease value (agreement fees) of Rs.595.10 P. and he also deposited the 2nd kist of Rs.4,000/- On 21.11.1988, but-when he approached to deposit the 3rd kist on 24.2.1989, he could know that the settlement/ lease of the Ferry was cancelled on 17.1.1989 for the grounds stated above and it was settled with the defendant No.3. Relief claimed in the suit are:- (1) declaration that the cancellation of the lease of the Ferry is illegal and inoperative in law; (2) declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to continue the lease till end of June, 1989, would have become due only on 31.3.1989; (3) permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfere in his right to run the Ferry service for the full term, and (4) a temporary injunction. The plaintiff by a separate petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 prayed for a temporary injunction and the District Judge granted ad interim temporary injunction vide order dated 7.3.1989. The appellant (defendant No.3) preferred this appeal impugning this order. 4. The plaintiff by a separate petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 prayed for a temporary injunction and the District Judge granted ad interim temporary injunction vide order dated 7.3.1989. The appellant (defendant No.3) preferred this appeal impugning this order. 4. On verification/inspection of the documents filed and shown by the parties including the original copy of the tender notice, I am satisfied on these facts :- - (a) that the plaintiff deposited the 1st kist of Rs.8,000/-being the half of the lease amount as well-fess the lease agree­ment fees Rs.595.10 P, immediately with the settlement/ lease order in conformity with the conditions in the lease tender notice; (b) that the 2nd kist Rs.4,000/- was due for payment/deposit on 31.12.1998, but it was deposited on 21.11.1988 by the plain­tiff in view of the demand notice dated 4.11.1988. (c) the 3rd kist would have become due only on 21.5.I9o9, but the lease was cancelled on the ground of non-deposit of the lease agreement fees of Rs.595.10 P. and for default of payment of 3rd kist. 5. The copy of the settlement/lease order dated 31,5.1988 (photostat) filed by the appellant is not dependable, because it was not in conformity with the original terms of the sale notice and also does not tally with the payment of kists demanded by letter/notice dated 11 11.1988 and the payments made. The lease was for one year beginning from July, 1988, to end of June, 1989 and as per the terms of the sale notice the respondent (plaintiff) paid kists for 9 months clearing 2nd kist upto the end of March, 1989 and the 3rd kist fell due on 31.3.1989. 6. There is no provision in the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972 or the Rules to cancell a lease where required kists and lease agreement fees are deposited in time or on the ground for non-deposit of any kist before the same becomes due. The cancellation can be done for breach of any conditions specifically made in the sale notice or in the lease agreement, and not arbitrarily. But in the instant case, the Mahakuma Parishad had committed serious illegality in cancelling the lease of the plaintiff-respondent. The cancellation appeared to have been done violating the fundamental principle of judicial procedure under the Act and Rules concerned and in violation of natural justice. But in the instant case, the Mahakuma Parishad had committed serious illegality in cancelling the lease of the plaintiff-respondent. The cancellation appeared to have been done violating the fundamental principle of judicial procedure under the Act and Rules concerned and in violation of natural justice. The resettlement with defendant No. 3 (appellant) was also made in violation of Rule 28(6) of the Rules of Assam Panchayati Raj (Administrative) Rules, 1973. This is also an evidence that the defendants No 1 and 2 were determined to commit illegality formulating nullity. 7. Learned counsel Mr. A. B. Choudhury for the appellant (defen­dant No. 3) submits that the civil suit was not maintainable for the bar under section 151 of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972 and that the plaintiff had remedy against the order under section 138 by way of appeal. Mr. N. M. Lahiri for the respondent (plaintiff) submits that the cancellation order being a nullity for the reason of violating the fundamental principle of judicial procedure and natural justice, the bar of a civil suit under section 151 would not be applicable. He referred to the principle/decision laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Swamp & Ors vs. Shikar Chand and Anr. reported in A I R 1966 S C 893. Perused this decision. It was held by Supreme Court that a bar by statute excluding jurisdiction of the civil court can not operate in the cases where the plea raised before the civil court goes to the root of the matter and would, if upheld, lead to the conclusion that the impugned order is a nullity. The Privy Council also had expressly emphasised the same principle (Secretary to State vs. Mask and Co. AIR 1940 P C 105). There is force in the sub­mission of Mr. N. M. Lahiri. As the order impugned in the suit appeared prima. facie to be a nullity for reasons of violating the funda­mental principles of judicial procedure and natural justice, the bar for a civil suit for the provision of section 151 in the statute would not be applicable (relied S C). 8. The cause of action itself indicate for seeking prompt remedy which could not be expected by the remedial provision under section 138 (2) (3) as the lease period is due to expire by the end of June, 1989; the civil suit for expeditious remedy by seeking injunction was maintainable. 8. The cause of action itself indicate for seeking prompt remedy which could not be expected by the remedial provision under section 138 (2) (3) as the lease period is due to expire by the end of June, 1989; the civil suit for expeditious remedy by seeking injunction was maintainable. 9. The plaintiff has a prima facie case, the balance of convenience is in his favour as he was running the Ferry under a valid lease, the cancellation of which prima facie appears to be a nullity and refusal to grant injunction would cause irreparable loss to him. No doubt such loss can be compensated by money, but it will be irreparable as his reputation in conducting the Ferry would be affected for future business career. The District Judge, Goalpara had justly granted ad interim temporary injunction on the defendants in the suit. The said ad interim temporary injunction dated 7.J. 19 89 in Title Suit No. 5/1989 deserves absolu eness. 10. There is no force in this appearence appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 250.00 (Rupees two hundred fifty). Expeditious legal remedy and relief must be extended to the respondent-plaintiff as the lease period would expire by end of June, 1989. Accordingly, the ad interim injunction dated 7.3 1989 in the Title Suit No. 5/1989 of the Court of District Judge, Goalpara is now made absolute and the Mahakuma Parishad i. e. defendants No. 1 and 2 of the suit are directed to allow the plaintiff to continue his lease of Jaleswar-Dhubri Launch (Engine Fitted) Ferry forthwith and till end of June, 1989; and the defendant No. 3 is restrained by injunction from running the ferry in that route. The plaintiff is directed to deposit the 3rd kist within 7 (seven) days from to-day and the defendants No. 1 and 2 shall receive the same. The plaintiff will also be at liberty to seek compensation before the appropriate forum for the period he was kept out from running the ferry for the illegal orders of the defendants No. 1 and 2 after disposal of the suit. The District Judge is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law expeditiously. 11. The appeal is dismissed. Send copy of this judgment immedi­ately to the Court of District judge, Goalpara.