ORDER : 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned orders dated 26.07.2019, 27.06.2019 & 26.03.2019 (Annexures P/1, P/2 & P/3) and further be pleased to direct the respondent to allow the petitioners to run their allotted shop in accordance with law in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.3. Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. The facts of the present case are as follows:- A. A decision was taken by the Nagar Panchayat, Nawagarh to construct shopping complex near Gurudwara and a resolution in this regard was passed on 18.07.2008. B. A Tender Notice was issued on 21.04.2010 for construction of 32 shops, but bidders had to deposit Rs. 4,000/- each, for registration. C. Total 185 persons participated in the bid. D. The Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh further directed the bidders to deposit Rs.40,000/-, and out of 185 bidders only 109 bidders deposited the same. E. The minimum price of per shop was fixed to the tune of Rs.1,66,000/-. F. The Nagar Panchayat completed the construction of 32 shops and in the year 2018 decision was taken to allot the shop in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules 1996 (for short, "the Rules 1996") by way of open auction. The base price for each shop was fixed at RS.3, 55, 000/-. G. Again, an advertisement was issued in local newspapers on 26.06.2018, inviting the participants for open auction of shops. H. On 23.07.2018, the auction process was completed and 14 bidders were declared successful. The reservation policy was followed by the Nagar Panchayat too. I. The Successful Bidders were informed by the Nagar Panchayat on 04.08.2018. They were directed to deposit the entire consideration amount at once prior to 06.08.2018. J. The petitioners made representations before the Nagar Panchayat seeking extension of time and made a request, to deposit the consideration amount in installments. K. The Nagar Panchayat passed a resolution on 20.08.2018 and the representations moved by the petitioners were accepted. L. Agreements were entered into between the petitioners and Nagar Panchayat in the year 2019 on different dates and thereafter, possession of shops were handed over to the petitioners. K. The Nagar Panchayat passed a resolution on 20.08.2018 and the representations moved by the petitioners were accepted. L. Agreements were entered into between the petitioners and Nagar Panchayat in the year 2019 on different dates and thereafter, possession of shops were handed over to the petitioners. The shops were allotted to the petitioners for 15 years on lease, rent @ Rs. 750/- per month. M. The 50% amount of consideration was deposited by the petitioner prior to the execution of an agreement and 50% amount was to be deposited later on, as six months time was granted to the petitioner to deposit the remaining 50% amount. N. An inquiry was conducted by the Sub Division Officer (Revenue), Nawagarh and a report was placed before the Collector, who in-turn suspended the resolution passed by the Nagar Panchayat on 26.3.2019 and report was sent to the State Government, and a notice was also issued to the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO), Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh. O. The State Government vide order dated 27.6.2019, affirmed the decision taken by the Collector. P. The CMO, pursuant to the order issued by the Collector and the State Government suspended the resolution dated 18.7.2008 and 20.8.2018, and further directed the petitioner to vacate the allotted shops within a period of seven days. Q. The petitioners made representations before the Tehsildar, Collector, & CMO on various dates. R. This petition was filed on 01.08.2019 against the orders issued by the Collector and the State Government and the CMO. Interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners on 9.8.2019. 3. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners would submit that the decisions taken by the Collector, State Government and the CMO, Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh, are arbitrary and violative of the principle of natural justice. Mr. Sharma would submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners while suspending the resolution passed in their favour dated 18.7.2008 and 20.8.2018. It is argued that the possession of the shops were handed over to the petitioners by the Nagar Panchayat and agreements were also entered into between them in the year 2019 itself. Mr Sharma would contend that while exercising the power under Section 323 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short, the Act, 1961), the executed order can not be placed under suspension. He would thus pray that the orders impugned may be set-aside. 4. Mr Sharma would contend that while exercising the power under Section 323 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short, the Act, 1961), the executed order can not be placed under suspension. He would thus pray that the orders impugned may be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh would submit that shops in question were allotted to the petitioners contrary to the Rules, therefore, impugned decisions were taken by the authorities. He would submit that though the shops were allotted to the petitioner vide resolution dated 18.7.2008 & 20.8.2018 by the Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh, but it has no authority of law to extend the period to deposite the amount of consideration. Therefore, the resolution passed by the Nagar Panchayat dated 18.7.2008 & 20.8.2018 were in contravention to the provisions of the Act & Rules of 1961. He would further submit that when this fact was brought into the notice of the Collector, an order was passed by the Collector and the matter was referred to the State Government. He would argue that the State Government placed the resolution dated 18.7.2008 & 20.8.2018 under suspension and the CMO, vide order dated 26.7.2019, communicated the petitioners with regard to the suspension of the resolutions. He would submit that the Section 323 of the Act, 1961 would apply in the present case. As per this Section the Divisional Commissioner, the Collector, or any other officer authorized by the State Government to suspend the execution of resolution or order or prohibit the doing any act. He would submit that the decision taken by the authorities are within the four corners of the Section 323 of the Act 1961, and thus, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Vedang Shadangi, learned State counsel would submit that the State Government has taken a decision to suspend the resolution passed by the Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh dated 18.7.2008 and 20.8.2008, on the basis of, communication made by the Collector. He would submit that Nagar Panchayat has no power to extend the time to deposit the consideration amount. He would also submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 7. He would submit that Nagar Panchayat has no power to extend the time to deposit the consideration amount. He would also submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 7. Admittedly, the shops were constructed by the Nagar Panchyat and allotted to the petitioners and two more persons by the Nagar Panchayat and the resolution was passed in this regard on 18.7.2008; an amount of Rs.40,000/- was deposited by each of the petitioners as per tender notice, but later on, decision was taken to sell the shops by way of open auction and price of the shops was fixed to the tune of Rs.3,55,000/-. The petitioners highest bidders, moved representations before the Nagar Panchayat seeking extension of 6 months time to deposit the 50% consideration. The 50% amount of the consideration was deposited by the petitioners at the time of execution of the agreements. A resolution was passed by the Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh on 20.8.2018 and 6 months time was extended in favour of the petitioners to deposit the remaining 50% amount of the consideration. The possession of the shops were handed over to the petitioner in the year 2019 itself, and the petitioners are running their shops since 2019 without any complaint; an inquiry was conducted by the SDO(R) Nawagarh, where it was found that the Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh has no authority of law to extend the period of six months to the petitioners to deposit the remaining 50% amount of the consideration and the resolution passed in this regard dated 20.8.2018 was contrary to the provisions of the law. 8. The report was placed before the Collector Bemetara, who in-turn, who suspended resolutions dated 18.07.2008 & 20.08.2018 & also referred the matter to the State Government and vide order dated 27.6.2019. The respondent No. 1, affirmed the action taken by the Collector and directed the CMO Nagar Panchayat Nawagar to suspend the resolution dated 18.7.2008 and 20.8.2018. 9. The CMO complied with the orders issued by the Collector as well as the State government and suspended the resolutions dated 18.07.2008 & 20.08.2018 and also directed the petitioners to vacate the subject shops within a period of seven days. The authorities allegedly exercised power given under Section 323 of the Act, 1961. 10. 9. The CMO complied with the orders issued by the Collector as well as the State government and suspended the resolutions dated 18.07.2008 & 20.08.2018 and also directed the petitioners to vacate the subject shops within a period of seven days. The authorities allegedly exercised power given under Section 323 of the Act, 1961. 10. It would be a advantageous to go through the provisions of Section 323 of the Act 1961, which reads as under as:- “323. Power to suspend execution of orders, etc., of Council-(1) If in the opinion of the Divisional Commissioner, the Collector, or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, the execution of any order or resolution of a Council, or of any of its Committee or any other authority or officer subordinate thereto, or the doing of any act which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of the Council, is not in conformity with law or with the rules or bye-laws made there under and is detrimental to the interests of the Council or the public or is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to public or any class or body of persons or is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, he may, by order or prohibit the doing of any such act. (2) When any order under sub-section (1) is passed the authority making the order, shall forthwith forward to the State Government and to the Council affected thereby a copy of the order with a statement of reasons for making it; and it shall be in the discretion of the State Government to rescind the order, or to direct that it shall continue in force with or without modification, permanently or for such period as it thinks fit: Provided that the order shall not be revised, modified or confirmed by the State Government without giving the Council reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the order.” 11. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 323 of the Act, 1961, it is apparent that Divisional Commissioner, the Collector, or any other officer authorized by the State Government may suspend the execution of any order or resolution or prohibit doing of any act which is about to be done or is being done, which is not in conformity with law or with the rules or byelaws or same is detrimental to the interests of the Council or the public. 12) In the present case, the resolutions were passed on 18.07.2008 & 20.08.2020 by the Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh in favour of the petitioners thereafter the agreements were entered into between the parties and possession of the shops in question were handed over to the petitioners. Meaning thereby the act was completed prior to its suspension or issuance of order impugned by the Nagar Panchayat. 13. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore, while dealing with the similar issue in the matter of DR. Dinesh Kumar Joshi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others passed in WP No. 5043 of 2020, has made following observations in para s 15 and 16 as under. 15. This Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Paliwal Vs. State of M.P. & Others reported in 2008(2) M.P.L.J. 463 had held in Para - 9 as under :- “9. At this stage, it may be noticed that under the provisions of section 323(1) of the Act, the Collector of a District, besides the other officers mentioned in the said provision, has only been vested with the power to suspend the execution of any order or resolution of a Council or its committee, of any act, which is about to be done or is being done or on behalf of the Council, and is not in conformity with the law or is otherwise detrimental to the interests of the Council or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public etc. It is thus, clear that jurisdiction vested in the Collector, and the other officers mentioned in the section, is only to suspend an action/order which is yet to be completed/executed/implemented. There is no power at all with the District Collector to suspend/nullify an act/resolution which stands already executed/implemented. It is thus, clear that jurisdiction vested in the Collector, and the other officers mentioned in the section, is only to suspend an action/order which is yet to be completed/executed/implemented. There is no power at all with the District Collector to suspend/nullify an act/resolution which stands already executed/implemented. Thus, apparently, the order dated October 9, 2000 passed by the Collector in cancelling the sale in favour of the petitioner was clearly in excess of his jurisdiction vested in him under section 323(1) of the Act, since the transaction of sale had already been completed. Even if, it be taken that the Municipal Council had violated the mandatory provisions of section 109(2) of the Act in disposing of its property, still the District Collector under section 323(1) had no power to nullify the said action of the Municipal Council. Essentially, the said power vested in the State Government, in its all pervasive supervisory control of the Municipal Council. 16. From the aforesaid conclusion, it can be seen that the Collector could have passed the order of suspension only if the action/order/resolution is yet to be completed/executed/implemented. In the present case, the resolution dated 08.11.2012 was already executed and was in force for at least five years. The Collector had no authority to call for a review or to stay the resolution and further direct grant of patta. It is also not known as to how the Collector has formed an opinion that the resolution of the Municipal Council is not in conformity with law or with the rules or bye-laws made thereunder. Admittedly, the fishing policy is not a statutory policy, but is merely a guideline. The local authorities are the best person to impose ban at the behest of the public sentiments. The Collector has definitely acted beyond the powers and jurisdiction. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.08.2018(Annexure-P/12), passed by the Collector, Mandsaur in Case No.462/B-121/2017-18 as also Appellate order dated 28.01.2020(Annexure-P/13), passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain in Case No.1457/Appeal/2017-2018 are hereby quashed.” 14. From the reading of the above cited judgment, it is clear that jurisdiction vested in the Collector, and the other officers mentioned in the Section 323 of the Act, 1961, is only to suspend an action/order which is yet to be completed/executed/implemented. There is no power at all with the District Collector or state to suspend/nullify an act/resolution which stands already executed/implemented. 15. There is no power at all with the District Collector or state to suspend/nullify an act/resolution which stands already executed/implemented. 15. In the present case, the entire exercise pertaining to the allotment of the shops in question was already executed/completed by the Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh. Later on, the Collector, State Government and CMO, Gram Panchayat Nawagarh took decisions on 26.03.2019, 27.06.2019 & 26.07.2019, respectively with regard to cancellation of resolution dated 18.07.2008 and 20.08.2018. 16. Taking into consideration the facts as stated above and the provisions of Section 323 of the Act 1961 and the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in DR. Dinesh Kumar Joshi (supra), in the opinion of the Court, the impugned orders passed by the Collector, State Government and the CMO, Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh, dated 26.03.2019, 27.06.2019 & 27.07.2019, respectively, are not sustainable in the eyes of the law, accordingly, the same are hereby quashed and the instant petition is hereby allowed.