IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.273 of 2007 1. Orient club, Muzaffarpur, thru. Anil kumar basak, Mohalla Amgola,P.O.Ramna, P.S. Kazimohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 2. Anil Kumar Basak, S/o. late Surath Lal Basak, r/o. Kedar Nath road, P.O. Kalyani, P.S. Town Thana, District- Muzaffarpur at present General Secretary of Orient Club, Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Divisional commissioner, Tirhut division, Muzaffarpur, 3. District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, 4. Sub-Divisional Officer (East), Muzaffarpur, 5. Circle Officer, Mushhari, Muzaffarpur, 6. Dr. Kumkum Rai Husband’s name not known r/o. Mohalla Amgola, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Station- Kazi Mohmmadpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 7. Sri Deepak Kumar, Father’s name not known, r/o. Amgola, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur. ----------- 10. 30.04.2009 This application is for quashing Annexure-1, which is a notice dated 30.10.2006 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur, whereby a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was drawn up and the petitioner i.e., Anil Kumar Basak, General Secretary of Orient Club, Muzaffarpur was restrained from going over the land in question in order to check the apprehension of breach of peace. Curiously it is found in the notice that the second party was arrayed the State of Bihar. Thus, indicating apprehension of breach of peace with regard to the concerned land between the petitioner and the State of Bihar the proceeding was initiated by the S.D.M., East 2 Muzaffarpur, who is none else than one of the constituent or office bearer of the State of Bihar. The matter was initiated in the way that vide Annexure-3 one doctor, Kumkum Rai wrote a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Bihar complaining that some lands belonging to the petitioner-club was being used as a playground for the children of the locality but the Club started giving out the land on lease to businessmen, as a result of which commercial activities begun and some anti-social element assembled on the land and therefore, it was requested in the letter that the land be taken-over by State of Bihar for the purpose for which it was being used. Copy of letter was also sent to the S.D.M., East Muzaffarpur. Vide Annexure-2 which is report dated 26.10.2006 of the Anchaladhikari, Mushari, it was reported that the Club has given some land to others on lease and due to this there was tension between the Club and the people of the locality. On the basis of that report the S.D.M., East Muzaffarpur initiated the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and restrained the petitioner i.e., the Secretary, Anil Kumar Basak from going over the 3 land. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. has already expired inasmuch as any order passed in such proceeding remains operative for 60 days only and that the order of restraining has automatically ceased its force and thus it is no more but raising an academic point that the initiation of the proceeding vide Annexure-1 was illegal in view of the fact that when the State of Bihar was itself second party in the proceeding the S.D.M., East Muzaffarpur, who is a constituent of the State of Bihar had no authority to initiate such proceeding, inasmuch as no one can be a judge of his own cause. Here when the second party was State of Bihar itself, the S.D.M., East Muzaffarpur, who is a government officer under State of Bihar cannot legally initiate such proceeding being a judge of its own cause in the capacity of the constituent of the Government of Bihar. In such view of the matters, though the notice has become infructuous, still it requires to be quashed. Therefore, the notice is hereby quashed. 4 During hearing learned counsel also requested for issuance of directions to the respondent-State for protecting the interest of the petitioner, who is a Minority Club, but any details of interest or the impending danger over the address or the nature of the claim and the counter- claims are not indicated in the petition. Moreover, this is an independent question to be decided in a separate writ, therefore, this question is not taken into consideration. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)