(1.) THE order dated 12. 11. 08 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, 1st Court, Howrah in MP case no 973/08 is under challenge at the instance of the present petitioners who were the opposite parties before the learned Magistrate in the said proceeding under section 144 (2) of the Cr. P. C. which was initiated by the present opposite party no. 1 herein.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ramchandra Guchait, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party. By the order impugned the learned Magistrate directed service of notice upon the present petitioner so as to show cause as to why a proceeding u/s 144 Cr. p. c. would not be drawn up against them. Allegation was that the present petitioners in collusion with a road contractor were amalgamating the opposite party's land with the common passage. The date was fixed on 26th November 2008 for furnishing show cause. On 26th November 2008 the Magistrate was busy. The next date fixed was 2nd January 2009. Now on 19th August 2008 the opposite party herein filed a 'put-up' petition praying for early hearing and the learned Magistrate directed the opposite party to inform the present petitioner. Then the date was fixed on 2nd September 2008 and on that day no hearing did take place. Hearing was adjourned to 23rd October 2008. Then the hearing stood further adjourned to 12. 11. 2008. On 12. 11. 2008 the impugned order was passed.
(3.) MR. Basu submits that the order dated 12. 11. 2008 could not have been passed if in compliance with the order of the learned Magistrate the opposite party herein would have informed the present petitioners of his petition praying for early hearing of the case and the order of the learned Magistrate fixing 23rd October 2008 for hearing of the petition under section 144 Cr. p. c. Mr. Guchait, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that the learned Magistrate did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned order.