JUDGMENT : S.C. Gupte, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing with consent of counsel. 3. The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is an order passed by the Collector of Chandrapur under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 ("Act"), ordering suspension of a resolution passed by 3rd respondent Municipal Council, Mul and confirmation of that order in revision by the Divisional Commissioner. 4. The petitioner is a public charitable trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The petitioner was registered with the aim and object of holding cultural and social activities for overall development of youth. On the application of the petitioner, 3rd respondent Municipal Council, by a resolution of its standing committee passed on 22nd June, 1998, allotted land bearing Survey No. 812 in Siddham Shettiwar Layout, Ward No. 10, within the area of the Municipal Council to it for construction of "Yuva Bhavan". It is not in dispute that in pursuance of this resolution, the petitioner has been in possession of the subject land and has even constructed a structure on this land. Nearly 15 years after allotment of the land, the resolution of 3rd respondent was challenged by way of public interest litigation (PIL No. 19 of 2013) by respondent No. 4 herein. By its order dated 7th August, 2013, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the PIL inter alia by recording the statement of 3rd respondent that a report, in this behalf, was forwarded to the Collector of Chandrapur for action under Section 308 of the Act and that though there was no action on that report, the request was reiterated to the Collector and appropriate steps would, accordingly, be taken to redress the grievance of the petitioner (respondent No. 4 herein) in accordance with law. In the premises, the Division Bench was of the view that the grievance of the PIL petitioner was being sufficiently redressed. The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to respondent No. 4 herein to approach the Court again if his grievance was not ultimately redressed. In the premises, the Division Bench was of the view that the grievance of the PIL petitioner was being sufficiently redressed. The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to respondent No. 4 herein to approach the Court again if his grievance was not ultimately redressed. It appears that there were no steps taken in pursuance of the statement recorded by the Division Bench as above and another writ petition was thereupon moved by respondent No. 4 herein, being Writ Petition No. 1841 of 2014. This Court, by order dated 1st October, 2014, disposed of that writ petition by accepting the statement made on behalf of the Collector of Chandrapur that he would take a final decision in the matter within a period of 12 weeks. The Collector has, in keeping with that statement, taken a final decision under Section 308 of the Act on 18th November, 2015. That order is challenged in the present petition. The order of the Collector was confirmed in revision by the Divisional Commissioner on 21st November, 2016. That order also forms part of the challenge herein. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the provisions of the Act, and, in particular, Sub Section (15) of Section 81 of that Act, if the Municipal Council had to modify or cancel its resolution, it had to resort to Sub Section (15) of Section 81 and could not have approached the Collector under Section 308 of the Act. I am afraid there is no merit in this contention. These two powers, that is to say, the power of the Municipal Corporation under Sub Section (15) of Section 81, and the power of the Collector under Section 308, are separate powers and stand on separate footings. The fact that the Municipal Council is empowered to modify or cancel its resolution under Sub Section (15) of Section 81, does not imply that on its application, the Collector cannot exercise his power under Section 308. After all, the powers of the Collector under Section 308 are not necessarily to be exercised on the application of any particular party. The Collector is even free to act suo motu on information received by him. If that is so, it scarcely matters from whom the information comes. It may well come from the Municipal Council itself. 6. After all, the powers of the Collector under Section 308 are not necessarily to be exercised on the application of any particular party. The Collector is even free to act suo motu on information received by him. If that is so, it scarcely matters from whom the information comes. It may well come from the Municipal Council itself. 6. Considering, however, the merits of the impugned orders of the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, it is at once clear that the orders do not record the satisfaction of the authorities on any of the conditions of Section 308 of the Act. Powers under Section 308 are to be exercised by the Collector on satisfaction that the execution of any order or resolution of a council is causing, or likely to cause, injury or annoyance to the public or is against public interest or is likely to lead to breach of peace or is otherwise unlawful. It is a prerequisite of any order to be passed under Section 308 for the Collector to record his satisfaction on either of these conditions. Our Court, in a Full Bench decision in the case of Sanjay Govind Sapkar and Others v. Collector of Dhule and Others, reported in 2004 (2) MhLJ 874 , has held that the "sine qua non for exercise of power by the Collector is that he must be satisfied that execution of any order or resolution or doing of anything which is or about to be done or being done on behalf of the Council (i) is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public, or (ii) is against public interest, or (iii) is likely to lead to a breach of peace, or (iv) is otherwise unlawful." If one has regard to the impugned order of the Collector in the present case, the impugned order simply refers to (i) the assurance given to this Court in the PIL by the Collector and (ii) Section 308 of the Act and suspends the resolution under Section 308 by noting that the order is being passed after considering the record of the case and arguments of rival parties. That I am afraid is not permissible. That I am afraid is not permissible. The Collector had to record, as noted above, his satisfaction on either of the conditions on which alone powers under Section 308 can be exercised and this he had to do by indicating, even if briefly, his reasons for such satisfaction. 7. The impugned order of the Divisional Commissioner does not take the matter any further. In the impugned order, the only discussion on the legitimacy of the exercise under Section 308, is in the following words : "Another submission of the appellant is that the Collector ought not to have exercised the power under section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965. This submission of the appellant cannot be said to be proper as the learned Collector after considering the fact that public utility land reserved for "Open Space" has been illegally granted to the applicant and on the same land illegal construction has been made by the appellant without obtaining permission of the concerned authority and is running the educational institution. Therefore, after considering the vital public interest, the learned Collector has rightly suspended the resolution dated 22.06.1998 which is well within his discretionary powers." 8. The Collector, in the first place, had not brought out the aspect of public interest in his impugned order, which was in revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner, in the premises, could not have upheld that order simply by stating that "after considering the vital public interest, the learned Collector has rightly suspended the resolution dated 22.06.1998 which is well within his discretionary powers." If at all, he had to come to an independent finding that either of the conditions of Section 308 was satisfied. 9. In the premises, the impugned orders of the authorities below cannot be sustained. 10. This Court would, however, like to make it clear that the orders are being set aside not on the ground that they are wrong on merits but that the manner of arriving at the orders was defective and indicated breach of the mandate of Section 308. 11. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders of the Collector, Chandrapur and Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Nagpur, respectively dated 18th November, 2015 and 21st November, 2016. 11. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders of the Collector, Chandrapur and Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Nagpur, respectively dated 18th November, 2015 and 21st November, 2016. It is made clear that since the matter is not decided on the merits of the Municipal Council's case under Section 308 of the Act, and since the Municipal Council even otherwise has powers under the Act to redress the grievance of respondent No. 4, this order shall not prejudice the Municipal Council in adopting any step permissible to it in law, including a fresh application under Section 308 of the Act to the Collector or resort to Section 81(15) of the Act. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits in that behalf are kept open. 12. The petition is disposed of in these terms.