C. K. THAKKER, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Bambhania waives service of Rule. The petitioners are members of the Home Guard Organisation and their service (Honorary service) is sought to be terminated enmass on the basis of the Government decision dt. 2nd December, 1995 on the basis of which the Home Guards Headquarters had addressed a letter Annexure, A to all the District Commandants to relieve all with immediate effect and the Liason officer of the Ahmedabad City, Sectors 1,2 and 3 were directed to obtain resignations. The letter Annexure, A makes it clear that it was because of the direction of the government in Home Department that this mass termination was started. Rule 8 of the Bombay Home Guards Rules, 1953 provides that the term of the office of the Member of the Home Guards shall be three years. It also provides that the person appointed shall be eligible for re-appointment. Section 6-B (1-A) of the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947 provides that the commandant shall have the authority to discharge any member of the Home Guards at any time subject to such conditions as may be prescribed if, in the opinion of the commandant, the services of such members are no longer required. Rule 9-A of the Rules provides that no member of the Home Guards shall be discharged under Sec. 6-B (1-A) unless the Commandant or Commandant General is satisfied that such Members has committed an act detrimental to the good order, welfare or discipline of the Home Guards Organisation. In the case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja vs. The State of Gujarat, JT 1995 (6) sc 146, the Supreme Court held that when statutory power is conferred upon one authority and is in substance exercised by another such decision would be ultra vires and void. In the present case, statutory authorities are Commandant and Commandant General and not the Government and, therefore, the action taken on the direction of Government would be ultra vires and void. There is no provision in the Act or Rule which empowers the Government to direct the termination of the services of any Member of the Home Guard or all the Members of the Home Guards, as has been sought to be done by the impugned decision of the government. There is no provision in the Act or Rule which empowers the Government to direct the termination of the services of any Member of the Home Guard or all the Members of the Home Guards, as has been sought to be done by the impugned decision of the government. This decision is clearly without authority of law and without competence and, therefore, that decision has to be quashed and set aside and the impugned termination are, therefore, declared to be void and illegal and they are set aside and all the petitioners are directed to be reinstated with their original terms and conditions of the appointment. Rule is made absolute in each of these petitions with costs. .