JUDGMENT : VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15.10.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in Appeal No. 5 of 2021 (Rajendra Kumar Agarwal vs. Vijay Kumar Chaubey and Others), under Section 160 of the U.P. Municipality Act, whereby he has rejected the preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal under Section 160 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916. 3. The objection was raised by the petitioner before the appellate Court that the appeal is not maintainable before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 160 of the Municipality Act and would be maintainable before the District Magistrate. The said act itself provides that the State Government may issue an appropriate notification giving power to hear the appeal to any other Authority/Court also. By notification dated 11.07.1974, issued in consultation with the Allahabad High Court, the State Government provided that the appeal can be heard by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate also. The notification dated 11.07.1974, is quoted below: ^^la[;k&80@6¼1½ nks&x&7¼5½@70 Jh pUæHkw"k.k f}osnh milfpo mŒÁŒ 'kklu lsok esa] leLr ftyk eftLVªsV] mŒÁŒ fu;qfDr ¼x½ foHkkx fnukad y[kuÅ] 7 uoEcj] 1974 fo"k;% ;wŒihŒ E;wfuLisYVht ,DV 1916 dh /kkjk 160 rFkk 318 rFkk vU; Ádh.kZ LFkkuh; ,oa fof/kd vf/kfu;eksa ds v/khu vihyksa dh lquokbZA egksn;] 1- mijksDr fo"k; ij 'kklu ds i`"B la[;k&3551 ¼1½@nks&x¼5½@70 fnukad 6 twu 1974 ds vuqØe esa eq>s ;g dgus dk vkns'k gqvk gS fd 'kklu us mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds ijke'kZ ls ;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd ;wŒihŒ E;wfuLisYVht ,DV 1916 dh /kkjk 160 rFkk 318 ds v/khu vihys phQ tqfMf'k;y eftLVªsVksa ds }kjk xzg.k dh tkuh rFkk lquh tkuh pkfg,A 2- 'kklu us ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd vU; Ádh.kZ LFkkuh; ;k fo'ks"k] vf/kfu;eksa ds vUrxZr vihy rFkk iqujh{k.k ÁkFkZuk i=ksa dh lquokbZ phQ tqfMf'k;y eftLVsªVksa }kjk dh tk,xh flok, ml n'kk esa tc fd muds vf/kdkj Lo;a fo'ks"k vf/kfu;eksa }kjk lhfer dj fn;s x, gksA Hkonh; gLrk{kj pUæHkw"k.k/kj f}osnh milfpoA** 4. Referring to the above quoted notification, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur has rejected the objection. 5. Referring to the above quoted notification, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur has rejected the objection. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 08.05.2020 passed in the Matters Under Article 227 No. 9748 of 2019 (Sajal Kumar and Others vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia and Others), in which, referring to Section 160 of the Municipality Act, Court has held that the District Magistrate of the District alone has power to hear the appeal and the Chief Judicial Magistrate does not have any such power. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the same was passed as the notification dated 07.11.1974 was not placed before the Court. Thus, the said judgment passed without taking into consideration the notification dated 07.11.1974 does not lay down the correct law. 6. In view thereof, the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in Appeal No. 5 of 2021, is within its jurisdiction. 7. No other submission is made by the petitioner. 8. Thus, no force is found in the present petition and the same is dismissed.