Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner, who is a Chairman of Municipal Board, Deedwana, has challenged in this petition the impugned order at Annex.3 dated 8.1.1999 passed by the Deputy Secretary of State of Rajasthan, whereby, the earlier order of suspension dated 9.8.98 (annex.1) passed by the Deputy Secretary of State of Rajasthan has been revoked in exercise of his powers under Section 63 and 64 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short ``the Act) The said order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that with the change in the State Govt. the impugned order of revoking suspension was passed by the Deputy Secretary under the political pressure. Annex.1 is the earlier order of suspension passed by the Deputy Secretary of the State of Rajasthan placing the respondent no.3, a mem- ber of the Municipal Board, under suspension in exercise of his powers under Section 63 and 64 of the Act. Respondent no.3 was placed under suspension after the receipt of preliminary enquiry report, wherein, serious irregularities were found to be committed by the respondent no.3. Before placing him under suspension he was asked to explain, but his explanation was not found satisfactory, therefore, by the impugned order respondent no.3 was placed under suspension as it was found that if he is continued as a member then the enquiry against him was likely to be effected. Respondent no.3 Shri Bhanwaru Khan challenged the impugned order of suspension before this Court by way of S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3044/98. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 6.1.1999 (Annex.2) as I was satisfied from the averments made in the petition and the reply filed by the other side that there was serious allegation against the petitioner-present respondent no.3 of putting the municipality to a substantial loss. The said writ petition was filed by Shri R.L. Jangid, who is now Addl. Advocate General. (2). The grievance made by the present petitioner in this petition is that within only two days of passing of the order by this Court on 6.1.1999 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-Bhanwaru Khan-present respondent no.3, the State Govt. revoked the order of suspension on 8.1.1999 in exercise of powers under Section 63 and 64 of the Act. (2). The grievance made by the present petitioner in this petition is that within only two days of passing of the order by this Court on 6.1.1999 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-Bhanwaru Khan-present respondent no.3, the State Govt. revoked the order of suspension on 8.1.1999 in exercise of powers under Section 63 and 64 of the Act. Thus, indirectly an attempt is made to circumvent the order passed by this Court which may even amount to contempt, therefore, this Court should take very serious view of the matter. (3). It was also submitted by the learned counsel Shri Joshi for the petitioner that after passing of the order by this Court on 6.1.99 there was no material change in the circumstances because of that the State Govt. was required to revoke the order of suspension. It was also submitted that the very circumstance, were present even at the time of passing of the order of revocation when the earlier order of suspension was passed. It was also submitted by Mr. Joshi that the State Govt. has not taken the decision to drop the judicial enquiry which was pending against the respondent no.3, therefore, the impugned order of suspension cannot be revoked. Because. According to him, in the impugned order at Annex.1 it was specifically mentioned that if Mr. Bhanwaru Khan is continued as a member then it was likely to affect the judicial enquiry pending against him. (4). Lastly, it was submitted by learned counsel Shri Joshi that once the order of suspension is passed under Section 63 (4) of the Act then the said order become final under the provisions of Section 63 (5) of the Act which even cannot be questioned in any court. He submitted that there is no provision either under Section 63 or under Section 64 of the Act which empowers the State Govt. to revoke the order of suspension till the completion of judicial enquiry. He, therefore, submi- tted that the impugned order at Annex.3 revoking the suspension order of respondent no.3 be quashed and set aside by allowing this writ petition and till the matter is finally decided the execution, implementation and further operation of the impugned order at annex.3 be stayed and State Govt. He, therefore, submi- tted that the impugned order at Annex.3 revoking the suspension order of respondent no.3 be quashed and set aside by allowing this writ petition and till the matter is finally decided the execution, implementation and further operation of the impugned order at annex.3 be stayed and State Govt. be directed to treat the respondent no.3 as under suspension till the pendency of this writ petition or the completion of the judicial enquiry pending against him. (5). There is lot of substance in the aforsaid submissions made by learned counsel Shri Joshi. Hence, not only this writ petition is required to be admitted but the impugned order of revoking suspension of respondent no.3 is required to be stayed ex-parte, as a very strong prima facie case is made out to pass such order. Hence, this writ petition is admitted. Notice is ordered to be issued to respondents. (6). By way of interim order the execution, implementation and further operation of impugned order of revoking the suspension of respondent no.3 dt: 8.1.99 passed by Deputy Secretary of State of Rajasthan is stayed till the final disposal of this writ petition. The effect of this order is that the respondent no.3 be treated as under suspension as per the earlier order of suspension (Annex.1) passed by the Deputy Secretary on 9.8.98 and he will not be entitled to participate in any of the proceedings of the Municipal Board, Deedwana. On being served the respondents or any of the respondent is at liberty to approach this Court for fixing an early date of hearing of this writ petition.