Order.- This application under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code is entirely misconceived. In this application the petitioner seeks to have quashed an order of the Commissioner of Police under section 26(1) of the Hyderabad City Police Act of 1348 Fasli, directing the petitioner to remove himself from the area of Kachiguda and shift himself to the area within the limits of Trimulgherry Police Circle and not leave that area for a period of one year. Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make suitable orders: (1) to give effect to any order under the Code, (2) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or (3) to secure the ends of justice. The power given to the High Court to make appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice does not empower the High Court to interfere with executive orders of executive authorities. It is not intended to vest the High Court with any omnipotent power. The order to be made by the High Court under section 561-A to secure the ends of justice must be in relation to a proceeding in the High Court or in any subordinate criminal Court and that proceeding too must have judicial character and must not be a proceeding of an executive or administrative character. The Commissioner of Police acting under section 26 of the Hyderabad City Police Act, cannot be called a subordinate criminal Court, nor can he be said to exercise any judicial functions. Mr. Lakshminarayana points out that the Commissioner of Police is a First-Class Magistrate for certain purposes mentioned in Section 47 of the Hyderabad City Police Act, namely, sections 86 , 87 , 90 and 91 of the Hyderabad Code of Criminal Procedure. The Commissioner functions as First-Class Magistrate only for those limited purposes and not when he makes an order under section 26 of the Act. It is also further urged that there is a provision in section 26(7) for hearing a person against whom an order under section 26(1) is proposed to be made and therefore the order must be considered to be of judicial character. It is difficult to agree with this contention. Merely because a statute contains a provision for hearing a person against whom orders are proposed to be made the order does not acquire a judicial character. It is difficult to agree with this contention. Merely because a statute contains a provision for hearing a person against whom orders are proposed to be made the order does not acquire a judicial character. Section 26 occurs in the Chapter relating to Police Regulation and Rules for preservation of order. An order under Section 26(1) is clearly of an executive character. I therefore hold that the application under section 561-A is not maintainable. It is therefore, dismissed. K.N.R.-----Petition dismissed.