ORDER : By notification dated 9th June, 1998, issued under section 76 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (Adhiniyam for the sake of brevity), the State Government declared that the Special Area Development Authority, Bhilai be dissolved with effect from 9-6-1998 and all assets and liabilities of the dissolved Special Area Development Authority shall stand vested in Nagar Palik, Bhilai, constituted under section 7 of the M.P. Nagar Palik Nigam Adhiniyam, 1956, Nagar Panchayat Kumhari constituted under the provisions of section 5 of the M. P. Nagar Palika Adhiniyam and a Nagar Palik Nigam Durg, constituted under the provisions of section 405(2) of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palik Nigam Adhiniyam. The respondent/State, Municipal Corporation Bhilai or Nagar Panchayat Kumhari have not produced any other document on record to show that what particular employees were transferred to these authorities. After constitution of these three authorities, the State Government issued yet another notification on 4-9-1998 (Annexure R.2/2) transferring the particular assets. On 14-9-1998 under Annexure R.2/3, the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai directed posting of as many as 34 persons from the staff of Municipal Corporation, Bhilai with Nagar Panchayat at Kumhari. The petitioner was included in the said list. On 1-1-1999 (may be 2-1-1999), Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai required the present petitioner to give his consent for his transfer and posting to Nagar Panchayat, Kumhari. On 4-1-1999 the petitioner vide Annexure P.3., reserved his consent and refused for his transfer. On 4-1-1999, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai issued as office order stating that in accordance with order of the Corporation, bearing No. 1281 dated 14-9-1998, persons who were transferred for posting at Nagar Panchayat Kumhari stand relieved. The petitioner thereafter joined at Kumhari, but Nagar Panchayat, Kumhari appreciating that they were not in need of 34 employees contacted and approached some minister and after obtaining his oral approval transferred 14 persons from Kumhari to Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. The order was issued on 27-2-1999 after approval of the administrator. The name of the petitioner was included in this list. After being relieved from Nagar Panchayat Kumhari, the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai and gave his joining report. According to the petitioner he was not permitted to join as according to the Commissioner, the earlier transfer was absolute and the State Government did not direct for retransfer. The name of the petitioner was included in this list. After being relieved from Nagar Panchayat Kumhari, the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai and gave his joining report. According to the petitioner he was not permitted to join as according to the Commissioner, the earlier transfer was absolute and the State Government did not direct for retransfer. The records show that on 17-3-1999, the State Government passed an order asking the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai that Kumhari Nagar Panchayat was in need of 26 persons only and proceedings for creation of 26 posts was under consideration, therefore, 8 persons be called back from Kumhari and only 26 persons/employees be posted at Kumhari Nagar Panchayat. The Order Annexure R.2/7 does not say anything that which employees were to be retained and which were to be transferred. It appears that everything was left to the discretion of Nagar Panchayat, Kumhari and/or Municipal Corporation Bhilai. Vide order Annexure R. 2/8 dated 9-4-1999. Municipal Corporation Bhilai proposed re-transfer in favour of 8 persons named in the said order. 2. The petitioner on one side was relieved by Nagar Panchayat Kumhari and on the other hand was not being permitted by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai to join, approached this Court. This Court on 12-5-1999 passed an interim order directing that the petitioner may be allowed to rejoin-services at Municipal Corporation, Bhilai and salary be paid to him by Municipal Corporation, Bhilai subject to further directions by this Court regarding its reimbursement. 3. Respondent/Municipal Corporation has submitted that after re-organisation of Sada, Bhilai they were asked by the State Government to transfer their employees therefore, they had issued order, transferring 34 persons. Kumhari Nagar Panchayat did not contest the petition on the said material aspect but however submitted that as they were in need of 26 persons only, 34 employees could not be thrusted. Being alive to the entire drama going on and also knowing that the petitioner was running from pillar to post so that he may be joined at some place. The State Government in its return simply stated that the dispute was between the petitioner on one side and the Municipal Corporation Bhilai and Nagar Panchayat Kumhari on the other side. The return filed by the State shows absolute lack of consideration and non-application of mind. The State Government in its return simply stated that the dispute was between the petitioner on one side and the Municipal Corporation Bhilai and Nagar Panchayat Kumhari on the other side. The return filed by the State shows absolute lack of consideration and non-application of mind. The State Government had asked the Corporation to transfer and post certain persons at Nagar Panchayat Kumhari. After receiving the notice of this petition, it came to the knowledge of the State Government that on one side the petitioner stood relieved from Nagar Panchayat Kumhari and on the other hand the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai was not permitting him to join the duties, did not step in the matter nor cared to pass any order. The act of the State Government cannot be approved. When the State Government passes an order it must have the sufficient material before it, before the order is passed. When the order is proposed to be passed it cannot be passed on the whims of the authority having the jurisdiction to pass the order. The authority before exercising its discretion must have the positive material before it otherwise such orders of the State Government would always create a chaotic condition. It is most unfortunate that even the State Government did not step in the matter, resolve the dispute and pass some orders. The State Government was happy and content by passing one order or the other and when the ball came in their field they were again content by saying that the dispute was between the petitioner and the local authorities. At this stage Shri Jha learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that as the petitioner did not file any representation before the State Government, the State Government could not pass any orders. I am astonished by this astounding proposition. After the notice of this petition was served on the State, it could persuade the State Government and its authorities to open their eyes, to come out of their hibernation and act in accordance with law. The State Government and its authorities and their representatives cannot be exempted simply on the ground that the petitioner did not make any representation before it therefore, they could not pass any order in favour of the petitioner. Why an advance copy is supplied to the learned counsel for the State? Why the notices are issued to the State Government? The State Government and its authorities and their representatives cannot be exempted simply on the ground that the petitioner did not make any representation before it therefore, they could not pass any order in favour of the petitioner. Why an advance copy is supplied to the learned counsel for the State? Why the notices are issued to the State Government? Are these documents to be received and thrown, or these are required to be read in their true perspective so that somebody at some level after going through the contents of the petition, proceeds to take some positive step in the matter. It cannot be gain said by the learned counsel for the State that they were not required to take any action in the matter. 4. Section 58 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, relates to appointment and condition of service of Corporation officers and Servants. Section 58(5) which is relevant for the present petition reads as under : Section 58(5) - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any rules or bye-laws thereunder, the State Government may, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (6), transfer on deputation (any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation) to any other Municipal Corporation and it shall not be necessary for the State Government to consult either the Corporation or the Officer or Servant concerned before passing an order of transfer on deputation under this sub-section. A perusal of sub-section (5) of section 58 would show that the power is given to the State Government to transfer on deputation any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation. This power of transfer does not vest with any other authority. It is the prerogative of the State Government that after application of mind it would pass an order under section 58(5). Sub-section (5) would further show that the State Government may transfer such employee subject to conditions specified in sub-section (6) of section 58. Sub-section (5) further says that the State Government may transfer on deputation any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation, to any other Municipal Corporation. The language is unambiguous, plain and simple. Sub-section (5) would further show that the State Government may transfer such employee subject to conditions specified in sub-section (6) of section 58. Sub-section (5) further says that the State Government may transfer on deputation any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation, to any other Municipal Corporation. The language is unambiguous, plain and simple. The provision of law, if is read as it is and shown to any person who has little knowledge of the language, can say that an employee of the Municipal Corporation can only be transferred to another Municipal Corporation and powers under sub-section (5) of section 58 of the Corporation Act can be exercised by the State Government alone and by none else. The State Government if is required to pass an order, may transfer the employee of a Corporation subject to conditions specified in sub-section (6) from one Corporation to another Corporation. The records show that the order of the transfer was passed by the Municipal Corporation under Annexure R. 2/3 dated 4-9-1998. Even after going through Annexure R.2/3, learned counsel for the State contended that as the State at a later stage approved the transfer and posting of these employees, the requirement of section 58(5) of the Act is fulfilled. The argument is misconceived. A perusal of the language of Sub-section (5) as quoted above would clearly show that the order is required to be passed by the State Government and a post-facto approval cannot validate an order which was passed by the authority which had no power to transfer the employees. I pointedly asked the learned counsel for the State as to whether the State had ever passed any order of transfer of any of the employees, in reply to which, learned counsel for the State submitted that as the issue was not raised by the petitioner, he is unable to answer. However, he was forced to concede that with the return the State has not filed any such order nor from the documents available on the record it appears that any such order was ever passed by the State Government. 5. I asked the learned counsel for the State as to whether the petitioner was an employee of the Corporation on the date when the transfer order was issued, to which learned counsel for the State again said that he was unable to say anything in relation to the said subject. 5. I asked the learned counsel for the State as to whether the petitioner was an employee of the Corporation on the date when the transfer order was issued, to which learned counsel for the State again said that he was unable to say anything in relation to the said subject. Learned counsel was requested to go through the documents annexed with the petition and the return of the respondent No. 2, specially Annexure P. 4 which clearly shows that on the date of the transfer the petitioner was an employee of the Corporation. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that from the perusal of the documents it so appeared but he would still be unable to say anything on behalf of the State. Annexure R.2/3 dated 4-9-1998 is an order passed by the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. It says that the persons named in the said order were posted in Nagar Panchayat, Kumhari. This order was passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and not by the State Government. Even after going through this document, learned counsel for the State was not ready to say that on the date of the proposal or on the date of the transfer the petitioner was an employee of Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. Be that as it may, the fact remains and is not disputed before me by the learned counsel for the Corporation that on the date of the proposal so also on the date of the transfer the petitioner was an employee of Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. 6. Learned counsel for the State placing his strong reliance upon section 76 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 submitted that after dissolution of a Special Area Development Authority and formation of Nagar Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, the assets and liabilities of the authorities shall stand vested in such authorities therefore, present was not a case of transfer of the employee but was a case of distribution of the employees to different authorities. Section 76 of the Adhiniyam provides that whenever in the opinion of the State Government the continued existence of any authority constituted under this Act is unnecessary or undesirable, the State Government may, by notification, declare, that such authority shall be dissolved from such date as may be specified therein and the authority shall stand dissolved accordingly. Section 76 of the Adhiniyam provides that whenever in the opinion of the State Government the continued existence of any authority constituted under this Act is unnecessary or undesirable, the State Government may, by notification, declare, that such authority shall be dissolved from such date as may be specified therein and the authority shall stand dissolved accordingly. Sub-section (2) of section 76 provides that all assets and liabilities of the authority shall stand vested in the newly constituted Nagar Panchayat and Municipality etc. and such Municipality shall have all powers necessary to take possession of, recover and deal with such assets and discharge such liabilities. The proviso to Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of section 76 provides that in cases where the area of such authority falls in different Municipalities the assets and liabilities of the authority shall be distributed among the Municipalities in such manner as the State Government may, by order, determine. A perusal of the proviso would make it amply clear that where the area of such authority falls in different municipalities then the assets and liabilities of the authority shall be distributed in such manner as the State Government may, by order, determine. If the employees are considered either to be assets or liabilities then in such a situation also, the State Government is obliged and duty bound to pass an order. Section 76 of the Adhiniyam would not come to the rescue of the State Government because but for Annexure R.2/1 and R-2/2., nothing has been placed on record. Section 76(2) authorises the State Government only to pass the orders. The State Government cannot delegate this authority or transfer the said powers to, or in the hands of Nagar Panchayat, Municipality or the Municipal Corporation. Neither section 58(5) of the Corporation Act nor section 76 of the Adhiniyam gives such an authority to the State Government to delegate the powers. 7. On the available documents learned counsel for the State may not concede or agree that on the date of the transfer the petitioner was an employee of the Corporation but this Court has no hesitation in holding that the present petitioner was an employee of the Municipal Corporation Bhilai, on the date when he was transferred. 8. 7. On the available documents learned counsel for the State may not concede or agree that on the date of the transfer the petitioner was an employee of the Corporation but this Court has no hesitation in holding that the present petitioner was an employee of the Municipal Corporation Bhilai, on the date when he was transferred. 8. If the petitioner was an employee of the Corporation, the Corporation had no powers to transfer his services to any other authority or any power to post him with any other authority. The State, as already observed, had not issued any order of transfer of the person nor has passed any order sending the person on deputation nor has issued any order of his fresh appointment. The order was passed by the Municipal Corporation without any authority or law, probably under the threat or fear of the orders of the State or to respect the State's order. Once it is held that the Corporation had no authority to transfer or post the petitioner to any other authority, the order of transfer would be illegal and cannot be approved in view of the discussion aforesaid. 9. The petition for the reasons stated aforesaid deserves to and is accordingly allowed with cost. The State is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as cost to the petitioner because its authorities were neither ready and willing to go through the provisions of law, contents of the petition, documents annexed with it nor were ready to appreciate its true import or pass any order even after the notice of the petition.