Due to the law and order problem, a Peace Committee Meeting was conducted at the Taluk Office, Kudavasal in thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 Crl.RC.No.381 of 2017 presence of the Tahsildar.The agitating public/villagers had requested that the petitioner firm should not draw water through bore well till there was continuous rain or there was water in the river.The petitioner company had offered to bring water through tankers from outside source and do the bottling in their factory and the agitating villagers did not agree for that and there was no consensus between the parties.This revision petition has been filed seeking to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order dated 13.02.2017 in Na.No.1930 of 2016 on the file of the respondent and revise the same.The petitioner firm is a company engaged in the business of mineral water after obtaining necessary license in the year 2008 and the license was in existence.The petitioner company had been running the business of bottling mineral water by drawing ground water through bore well in No.53 Simili Revenue Village, Thalayalangadu Village in Guttural Taluk.Since the villagers objected for drawing of under ground water in Thalayalangadu Village, Guttural Taluk, petitioner firm has sent a representation to the respondent, stating that due to failure of North-East monsoon in the year 2016, the ground water level has gone down and thereby, the villagers finding it difficult to draw water from their bore well, objected the petitioner company from drawing the underground ater through bore well.Pursuant to the same, on 02.01.2017 the villagers conducted a road blockade and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nannilam, Kudavasal Taluk and Inspector of Police, Kudavasal Police Station conducted a meeting with the villagers, due to which, the road block was withdrawn.Thereby, the Tahsildar had requested the Executive Magistrate to direct the petitioner's company to stop drawing of water from the bore well.A report was also given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that in respect of the road block, a case has been registered in Crime No.2 of 2017 for offences under Section 143, 341 and 188 IPC and it was also stated that if the operation of the petitioner company was not stopped, there was possibility of the villagers conducting agitation against drawing of water.Based on the above report, the respondent passed the impugned order on 13.02.2017 directing the petitioner company under Section 133 (1) B of Cr.P.C to stop the operations of the company temporarily till the next rainy season or till the drought gets over.The revision has been filed challenging the above order.Only if any of these two ingredients are available the respondents may pass the prohibition order.The road roko was conducted on the instigation of a political goon who had attempted to extort money from the Petitioner Company.This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their submissions and perused the impugned order, along with the other materials.P.C absolute.In other words, the order under Section 133 Cr.P.C., can only be a preliminary order since Section 138 empowers the Magistrate to hear the objections of the concerned party for the purpose of either making the order under Section 133 Cr.P.C., absolute or for modifying it.”http://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 Crl.RC.No.381 of 2017In the opinion of this Court, the Magistrate ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner after fixing specified period and thereafter, after following the procedure under Section 138 Cr.P.C. should have passed the order.Though this order is stated to be passed under Section 133 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C, which ought to be temporary preliminary in nature the Respondent had directed the Petitioner Company to stop operation till the next rainy season or till the drought gets over which amounts to closing operations in perputuity.The impugned order has been passed without following the procedure contemplated under Section 138 Cr.P.C. and without application of mind.Further, if the order is passed under Section 133 of Cr.PC the magistrate has to fix the time and place in the order for appearance of the petitioner either before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him to show cause as to why the order should not be made absolute and such an observation is missing in the order.In view of the above, the impugned order is vitiated.http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 Crl.RC.No.381 of 2017 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.In the result, this revision is allowed.The impugned order dated 13.02.2017 passed by the respondent is set aside.However, it is made clear that the respondent is directed to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if circumstances warrants so.19.11.2019 bri Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order To1.The Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvarur.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.RC.No.381 of 2017http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10

Sections cited: Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code