PRAKASH CHANDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the State Administrative Tribunal, jabalpur challenging the order dated 28. 9. 1996 (Annexure A/8), passed by the respondent No. l-State by which a warning has been issued to the petitioner to the effect that in future he will function in accordance with law and that he should enhance his knowledge about law. During the pendency of this petition the state administrative Tribunal has been abolished and therefore the matter has been transferred to this Court.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that in the year 1994 the petitioner was posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sagar. During his tenure as Sub Divisional Magistrate one Amarsingh and Sahabsingh, initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the code of Criminal Procedure against Ram Singh and Gulab Singh on the ground that there were serious disputes between the parties in respect of possession of land of Survey Nos. 525, 517, 180, having total area 14. 65 acres, situated at village majhgawan of District Sagar and the said dispute would cause breach of peace between the parties and, therefore, prayed for passing a prohibitory order against party No. 1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate called the report from the police station bahariya of District Sagar and thereafter registered a case vide Case No. 99 of 1995. In the application under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. notices were issued to the other party. During the pendency of the proceedings, on 20. 2. 1995, an application under Section 146 (1) of Cr. P. C was filed. The Sub Divisional Magistrate fixed the case for hearing on 22. 2. 1995 and without issuing any show cause notice to the other party (Party No. 1) heard the party No. 2 and passed the prohibitory order dated 10. 3. 1995. The party No. l aggrieved by the said order and filed a criminal revision before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar vide criminal Revision No. 36/95. In the said revision, they pointed out that in respect of the same land a civil suit (C. S. No. 6-A/94) was pending in which an application for temporary injunction filed by party No. 2 was rejected on 27. 4. 1994. It is also pointed out by party No. l that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate without issuing any show cause notice to the party No. l and without giving an opportunity of hearing passed a prohibitory order on 10. 3. 1995. The learned Additional Sessions judge after hearing the parties passed the order dated 14. 8. 1995 (Annexure A/5)and made certain observations against the present petitioner. The matter was referred to the State Government whereas the State Government on the basis of the observations made by the learned III Additional Sessions. Judge, Sagar passed an order dated 28. 9. 1996 (Annexure A/8) and warning has been issued to the petitioner. By this action the petitioner is aggrieved and filed this petition on the ground that the said order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity of hearing to him.

(3.) IT is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the observation made by the III Additional Sessions Judge is contrary to the record of the case and in support of the said contention, he drew my attention to the order dated 20. 2. 1995,22. 2. 1995 and 10. 3. 1995 respectively.