HRUSHIKESH ACHARYA Vs. BALARAM PATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 24-12-1965 the Officer-in-charge, Binjharpur Police Station, submitted a report to the Circle Inspector of Police to initiate a proceeding under Section 144, cri. P. C. for restraining the petitioners (members of the second party) from holding cattle market on plot Nos. 348, 349 and 350 under khata No. 381 in village Barakoti. This remained pending before the Deputy Superintendent of police, who sanctioned forwarding of the report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, jaipur, on 28-1-1966. On 25-3-66 Hrushikesh Acharya, petitioner No. 1 filed an application in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer stating therein that the petitioners should be heard before orders were passed on the prosecution report. On 26-3-66 the Sub-Divisional Officer issued notice to both the parties to appear on 6-4-66 for hearing. On the same day the petitioners filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer for restraining Balaram Pati (Opposite party and first party) from holding cattle market who was creating disturbance in the market held by the second party. The case of the second party in that petition waft that they were holding cattle market on plot Nos. 1498, 1500 and 1508 and not on the disputed lands. The S. D. O. ordered that the case should be put up on 6-4-66 with the connected papers; but in the meantime he transferred the case to the file of Sri K. B. De, Magistrate, First Class, for disposal. On 1-4-66 Sri De passed the following order-

(2.) ON 31-5-66 the trial Magistrate passed an order that as two months had already expired, the case was to he filed.

(3.) A Magistrate, while passing an order under Section 144 (1), Cri. P. C. , must be satisfied that there it sufficient ground for proceeding under the section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable. If he is so satisfied, he may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case, direct any person to abstain from a certain act. The section thus enjoins that material facto of the case must be stated in the order. In this case, there was a police report which has been referred to in the order. Though the order of the learned Magistrate dated 1-41966 does not show the material facts on which he relied for his satisfaction that an emergency existed, an interference with this order may not be justified in all cases. If in facl there are materials justifying the order, omission to set out the material facts in the order may amount to a mere irregularity.