Judgment :- 1. The order in controversy is the order of the Additional District Magistrate of Quilon in Criminal Revision Petition No. 5 of 1955. That revision petition was from an order in M.O. No. 61 of 1955 of the Court of the First Class Magistrate (Executive) Chengannur. 2. The petition before us was originally filed as Criminal Revision Petition No. 36 of 1956. It was subsequently converted as O. P. No. 234 of 1956 in pursuance of the order in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 81 of 1956. The petition summaries the facts of the case in the following terms: "On a complaint by the Revision Petitioner, the Police after due enquiry charge sheeted the counter-petitioners for offences under S.148,149, 447, 336, 506 (ii) and 426 I. P. C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's court, Chegannur, in C. C. 190/55. Even after that the counter petitioners began to pelt stones on the house of the petitioner and began to use abusive language against him and do all sort of things that would not only bring discredit to the petitioner but also do not allow him to live peacefully. The police therefore, took proceedings under S.107 before the 1st Class Magistrate (Executive), Chengannur as M.C. 61/55. The first counter-petitioner thereafter filed a complaint in the 1st Class Magistrate's Court (Executive) as M. C. 70/55 against the present Revision petitioner and others, which case after written statement had to be transferred to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chengannur and therefore the case number as M. C. 3/56 is under trial under S.147 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding a pathway referred to in the present impugned order of the Additional District Magistrate (Executive). In the case M.C. 61/55 against the counter-petitioners under S.107, the 1st Class Magistrate ordered to furnish interim security and upon that order the counter-petitioners filed Criminal R. P. 5/55 before the Additional District Magistrate (Executive) Quilon and the Additional District Magistrate (Executive) passed the present order from which the present Criminal Revision is filed". 3. The Additional District Magistrate summarised the facts as follows in his judgment in Criminal Revision Petition No. 5 of 1956. "The petitioners are counter-petitioners 1 and 7 in M. C. 61 of 1955 on the file of the Executive First Class Magistrate, Chengannur, relating to proceedings under S.107 Cr. 3. The Additional District Magistrate summarised the facts as follows in his judgment in Criminal Revision Petition No. 5 of 1956. "The petitioners are counter-petitioners 1 and 7 in M. C. 61 of 1955 on the file of the Executive First Class Magistrate, Chengannur, relating to proceedings under S.107 Cr. P. C. The preliminary order in the above case was passed on 16-8-1955, requiring the petitioners and five others to show cause why they should not be asked to execute bonds for Rs. 500/- each to keep the peace for one year. The petitioners have denied the charges against them. The enquiry in the case is proceeding. On 19-9-55 the Sub Inspector of Police, Chengannur filed a report before the court, with the approval of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Chengannur stating that the counter-petitioners in the case are often threatening to do injury to the petitioners and that for preventing breach of the peace, the counter-petitioners should be required to execute interim bonds for keeping the peace under S.117 (3) Cr. P. C. On 19-12-1955, the Executive Magistrate passed orders demanding interim bond for Rs. 500/- from counter-petitioners, 1, 2, 3 and 7, for keeping the peace until the conclusion of the enquiry. The present petition is against this order" and said : In my view the order passed by the lower court was made after a very careful consideration of the circumstances of the case and the reports received from responsible police officers. I do not think there is any need to interfere with the order" One would have thought that having come to the conclusion that the order of the First Class Magistrate should be confirmed the Additional District Magistrate was, only called upon to dismiss the revision petition before him. He however, proceeded to take action under S.30 of the Travancore-Cochin Police Act, 1951. He directed that until the proceedings under S.147 are concluded: "The pathway will be attached and taken in the possession of the Police under S.30 of the Police Act. After the pathway is taken into possession the status quo before the dispute arose will be maintained till the conclusion of the inquiry under S.147, Criminal Procedure Code" 4. This direction seems to indicate a misapprehension of the powers of the Additional District Magistrate under S.30 of the Travancore-Cochin Police Act, 1951. S.30 reads as follows. After the pathway is taken into possession the status quo before the dispute arose will be maintained till the conclusion of the inquiry under S.147, Criminal Procedure Code" 4. This direction seems to indicate a misapprehension of the powers of the Additional District Magistrate under S.30 of the Travancore-Cochin Police Act, 1951. S.30 reads as follows. "In order to prevent or suppress any riot or grave disturbance of the peace, the District Magistrate may temporarily close or take possession of any building or place and may exclude all or any persons therefrom, or may allow access thereto to such persons only and on such terms as he shall deem expedient. All persons concerned shall be bound to conduct themselves in accordance with such orders as the District Magistrate may make and notify in the exercise of the authority hereby vested in him." It is clear from the wording of the section that there is no provision for an attachment of the pathway or the police taking possession of it. It is also clear that before taking action under S.30 the District Magistrate should be satisfied that such action is necessary "in order to prevent or suppress any riot or grave disturbance of the peace." There is nothing in the order impugned to show that he apprehend, any riot or grave disturbance of the peace and considered it necessary to take action under S.30 in order to prevent any such riot or disturbance of the peace. 5. In view of this the portions of Ex. A which embody the direction under S.30 of the Travancore-Cochin Police Act, 1951, have to be quashed and are hereby quashed. 6. The petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated above. No costs.