JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by Jetha Nand for quashing the order passed by the S.D.O. (Rev.), Raisinghnagar dated 26.4.82 (Anx. 2) and the order of Revenue appellate Authority, Bikaner dated 5.2.83 (Anx. 4). 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the petitioner was allotted a shop No. 18 and Bhajan Singh, respondent No. 4 was allotted shop No. 19, Bhajan Singh applied to the Municipal Board for sanction to install 5 horse power electric motor for lathe machine, which was sanctioned by the Board in the year 1977. It is alleged that thereafter in November-December, 1981, the respondent No. 4 installed a diesel engine of 10 horse power in his shop without obtaining permission which caused nuisance. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Municipal Board in the month of March, 1982. A notice to show cause was issued to the respondent No. 4, in pursuance of which he appeared before the Municipal Board and submitted his reply on 5.4.82. Ultimately vide order dated 20.4.82 (Anx. 1) the Municipal Board cancelled the permission while exercising the powers under section 21 of the Municipal Board Raisinghnagar Small Industries Control Bye-laws, accorded to the respondent No. 4. Dissatisfied with the same, the respondent No. 4 moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raisinghnagar who vide order dated 26.4.82 stayed the order of the Municipal Board dated 20.4.82 but later on cancelled his stay order vide order dated 27.9.82. Being aggrieved with the said order, the respondent No. 4 preferred a revision before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 5.2.83 while remanding the matter to the S.D.O. simultaneously issued a direction to refer the proceedings to the State Government in view of S. 285(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. Hence, the petitioner-appellant Jetha Nand has approached this Court by way of writ petition. 3. This writ petition has been filed on 4.4.1983. On 5.4.83, this Court while admitting the same, stayed the operation of the order Anx. 4. Government Advocate, Mr. J.M. Bhandari and Mr. B.R. Mehta, appeared on behalf of the respondents and respondent No. 4 filed reply. 4. Mr. 3. This writ petition has been filed on 4.4.1983. On 5.4.83, this Court while admitting the same, stayed the operation of the order Anx. 4. Government Advocate, Mr. J.M. Bhandari and Mr. B.R. Mehta, appeared on behalf of the respondents and respondent No. 4 filed reply. 4. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter is of civil nature and Section 285 is not applicable, so the impugned orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Revenue Appellate Authority are without jurisdiction and deserve to be set aside. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the relevant provisions of law. 6. It is well settled that Section 285 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act contemplates and authorises that the execution of any order of the Board which is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or a breach of the peace or is unlawful only under such circumstances, the Officer appointed or authorised by the State Government in this behalf can suspend the execution or prohibit the doing of that act. At the same time Section 285 does not confer any power on such officer to himself rescind that order of suspension which could only be done by the State Government under sub-section 2 of S. 285, on reference and the final order will be passed after hearing the parties. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Municipal Board, on which the Chairman in the exercise of powers vested under section 21 of the Municipal Board Raisinghnagar Small Industries Control Bye-laws vide order dated 20.4:82 (Anx. 1) cancelled the permission granted to the respondent No. 4 for 5 H.P. Electric Motor. The order Anx. 1 reads as under:- " fuEu gLrk{kj dRrkZ uxjikfydk jk;flag uxj ( y?kq dkj[kkuk fu;a=.k ) mifu;e 1963 dh /kkjk 21 dh 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vkidk 5 gklZ ikoj dh eksVj dk vuqKki= rqjUr izHkko ls fujLr djrk gwWaA g0 jketl jk; v/;{k uxjikfydk] jk;flag uxj 8. A bare perusal of the said order shows that in the order there is no whisper about the basic facts required by the Section 285 that the execution of any resolution of the Board is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or a breach of the peace or is unlawful. A bare perusal of the said order shows that in the order there is no whisper about the basic facts required by the Section 285 that the execution of any resolution of the Board is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or a breach of the peace or is unlawful. Therefore, before invoking Section 285, these basic facts must exist in the opinion of the officer before he acquires the necessary authority to operate the section. As stated above in the instant case the order Anx. 1 was passed by Chairman on the complaint that the respondent No. 4 was granted permission to install 5 H.P. Motor but he has started 10 H.P. Engine without obtaining sanction and to verify this fact the Chairman, Municipal Boaru asked the E.O. to see the site and give his factual report in this regard and thereafter the sanction granted was cancelled. Therefore, in the absence of basic facts, in the impugned order Anx. 1 dated 20.4.82, for invoking Section 285 it can be said that the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) as also the learned Revenue Appellate Authority have erred in exercising their jurisdiction under section 285, which was apparently not applicable, nor attracted in the present case. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 26.4.82 (Anx. 2) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer(Rev) and the order dated 5.2.83 passed by the learned Revent Appellate Authority are set aside.Writ Petition Allowed *******