C. K. THAKKAR, J. ( 1 ) IN all these petitions common petition challenging the order dt. 12-9-1994 passed by the Collector, Banaskantha, the respondent no. 2, etc. questions of fact and law arise for determination of this Court and it will be proper to dispose them of by a common judgment. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are employees of radhanpur Municipality-Respondent No. 3 herein. According to them, they were initially appointed as daily wagers and then made permanent by passing necessary resolution. Collector, banaskantha, respondent No. 2 herein, in purported exercise of powers under section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the act) suspended the said resolution by an order dtd. September 12, 1994 and directed to restore status quo ante. Against the action, the petitioners have filed these petitions. ( 3 ) ALL the petitions came to be admitted by this Court by an order dtd. 17-9-1994. Interim relief was also granted. Today when the matters were called out for hearing a number of contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is, however, not necessary to deal with all these contentions since on a short ground the petitions can be disposed of. It is not disputed even by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioners came to be apppointed and were in service when the impugned action was taken by respondent No. 2 and when he passed the impugned order under Section 258 of the act. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the petitioners before passing the impugned order, the petitioners ought to have been afforded an opportunity of hearing as the order adversely affects them. It was submitted that the point is concluded by a decision of the Division bench of this Court in H. H. Parmar v. Collector, Rajkot, and Another, 20, (2) G. L. R. R. 97. It is held by this Court that if any action is required to be taken by the collector, in exercise of power under section 258 of the Act, he has to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is not disputed that the petitioners were appointed and they were is service. It is held by this Court that if any action is required to be taken by the collector, in exercise of power under section 258 of the Act, he has to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is not disputed that the petitioners were appointed and they were is service. It was, therefore, incumbent on the part of the respondent No. 2 to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard if he was of the opinion that the action taken or resolution passed by the respondent-Municipality was contrary to law. It is not even the case of respondent No. 2 that any opportunity of being heard was afforded to any of the petitioners. Hence, on this short ground alone, the impugned order requires to be set aside and quashed. . ( 5 ) MR. Bukhari, learned A. G. . P. for the respondents submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case and looking to the record and Section 24 of the Act, the resolutions passed by - the respondent-Municipality were clearly contrary to law and the petitioners could not have been appointed or made permanent. I am afraid in the present petitions such question cannot be entertained by this Court. I may, however, make it clear, that I am not expressing any opinion on merits of the matter and it is open to the respondent no. 2 to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons only on one ground, all these petitions are allowed and the order passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside. It is open to the, respondent No. 2 collector, Banaskantha to pass an appropriate order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Rule is made absolute to the above extent, with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. .