JUDGMENT Das Gupta, J. - This application for revision is directed against an order made by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, under sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By this order the Magistrate directed the present Petitioners to abstain from demolition work on premises No. 146/2, Old China Bazar Street. The order was passed ex parte on December 1, 1948, on an application by Tulsi Shaw, the Opposite Party before us, filed on November 30, 1948. When passing this ex parte order the learned Magistrate directed the Petitioner to show cause why this order should not be made absolute by December 2, 1948. On a further application being filed by the Opposite Party stating that demolition was still going on, the Magistrate asked the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Calcutta, to report how in spite of the order under sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure demolition work had not been stopped. On December 2, a report was received from the Deputy Commissioner of Police stating that it was the corporation authorities who were carrying on demolition work and that in the presence of the Police the corporation authorities dismantled a portion of the rooms occupied by Tulsi Shaw and that Tulsi and his men obstructed the work of the corporation authorities and there was apprehension of a breach of the peace; that Tulsi's two brothers, Chhanu Shaw and Bhagwan Shaw, were arrested* by the Police and that a case had been started against them. It was on this very date that the Petitioners also showed cause stating among other things that it was the Corporation that was dismantling the house in question and not these Petitioners. On the same date the Opposite Party also filed another petition before the Magistrate alleging that the Opposite Party taking advantage of the fact of their richness and resources were influencing and inspiring interference by the Corporation of Calcutta; that in any view of the case the Corporation cannot pass any demolition order without service of notice on the occupants. After this the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate asked the Administrative Officer to enquire and report about the truth of these statements. On December 23, 1948, before any report had been received from the Administrative Officer the learned Magistrate passed the following order: Heard both sides'' lawyer. No report has come from the Administrator. The injunction is made absolute. After this the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate asked the Administrative Officer to enquire and report about the truth of these statements. On December 23, 1948, before any report had been received from the Administrative Officer the learned Magistrate passed the following order: Heard both sides'' lawyer. No report has come from the Administrator. The injunction is made absolute. It is against this order that the present application is directed. Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers certain Magistrates to direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management. The condition precedent of the exercise of such powers is in the first place, that the Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tend to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray; and secondly, that in the opinion of the Magistrate there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable. 2. In the present case the allegation of the Opposite Party in the petition filed before the Magistrate on November 30 was that the present Opposite Party had collected a number of men and materials and had started forcibly dismantling the premises of the Petitioners. It cannot be said that the Magistrate was not justified in passing an ex parte order on that date as obviously he might well think that this direction would prevent the demolition of the premises and thus prevent annoyance and injury to the Petitioners and certainly immediate prevention was in this case desirable. 3. Very rightly, he gave an opportunity to these Petitioners to show cause against this order and the cause shown by the Petitioners was to the effect that not they but the Corporation authorities were responsible for the demolition. The report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, to whom the learned Magistrate himself sent the matter for enquiry, was also to the same effect. The report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, to whom the learned Magistrate himself sent the matter for enquiry, was also to the same effect. That the report was substantially correct is clear also from the statements in paragraph 6 of the Petitioners' original application where he says: That la the meantime, to-day the opposite parties have again collected a number of men and materials and brought a police officer with few constables and certain people looking like Corporation employees and have started to forcibly dismantle the premises... 4. There is no indication from the papers in this case that the learned Magistrate either doubted or had any reason to doubt the truth of this case of the present Petitioners that not they but the Corporation authorities were carrying on the demolition work. The materials on the contrary justify fully a conclusion that the Corporation authorities, whether at the instance of the present Petitioners or not, were carrying on the demolition work. In this state of things I fail to understand how anybody could think that a direction to the present Petitioners not to demolish the house would have any of the effects which the learned Magistrate in passing the order under sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure obviously contemplated. The final order passed by the learned Magistrate does not show that he considered any papers at all; for there is no reference to either the report from the Police or to the statements made in the different petitions by either party. 5. The power which sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to these Magistrates are very wide powers, and that is all the more reason that they should be exercised with discretion and discrimination. Magistrates ought to remember that arbitrary use of these powers is not only unfair to the parties concerned, but is very often calculated to defeat the purpose for which the orders are passed. 6. For the reasons already mentioned I am clearly of opinion that this is a case where the learned Magistrate has not at all used his discretion. Magistrates ought to remember that arbitrary use of these powers is not only unfair to the parties concerned, but is very often calculated to defeat the purpose for which the orders are passed. 6. For the reasons already mentioned I am clearly of opinion that this is a case where the learned Magistrate has not at all used his discretion. I cannot imagine how when A is doing some work which may cause annoyance a direction to B not to do that work can be thought by anybody to have the effect of preventing A, who is not by any means under the control of B, to stop doing such work. The Corporation authorities are not the agents or the employees or in any way under the control of the present Petitioners and a direction on the present Petitioners can have possibly no effect on the Corporation authorities. I hold, therefore, that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was wrong and without jurisdiction. The order is accordingly set aside and the Rule is made absolute. Harries, C.J. I agrees.