(1.) THE petitioner herein has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order passed by the Revenue Divisional officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Madurai, the second respondent herein, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in Na.Ka.No.7682/2011/M, dated 03.10.2011, which prevented the two rival parties from conducting the function of conferring the title "Amabalakarar".
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is illegal and no order can be passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C., without passing any preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. and further Section 145 Cr.P.C. is applicable relating to the cases, wherein breach of peace exists concerning land or water or the boundaries thereof, but not with regard to conducting any function or religious functions. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that even the names of the parties are not mentioned in the impugned order and the impugned order is very vague and uncertain.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents submits that the Executive Magistrate has arrived at a subjective satisfaction before passing the impugned order, as there was a breach of peace and thereafter only he passed the prohibitory order. But, instead of quoting Section 144 Cr.P.C., inadvertently Section 145 Cr.P.C. is mentioned in the order and the Executive Magistrate has got power to pass such an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. Merely quoting wrong provision in the order does not give right to the parties to challenge the impugned order. The learned counsel for the impleaded respondents further submits by relying on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another Vs. Dr.Praveen Bhai Thogadia, reported in 2004(2) Crimes 107 (SC) that the Court should not normally interfere with the matters relating to the law and order which is primarily the domain of the concerned administrative authorities.