Short Note : 1. Facts giving rise to these applications in brief are that the District Magistrate, Ujjain served notice on the applicants under section 7 (1) of the Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1965, requiring them to show cause as to why an order for their ex-termination from the District of Ujjain and adjoining district, for a period of 1 year, be not passed, against them. The applicants submitted their replies, denied the allegations made against them, and prayed for examination of some witnesses in their defence. After examination of some of the applicants witnesses, the learned Police Prosecutor, was granted permission to cross-examine them. The applicants raised an objection to the cross-examination of their witnesses, on the ground that the same was not permitted by the scheme and the provisions of the Act, as their prayer for cross-examination of police witnesses by the applicant's counsel was rejected earlier. Held: It is the grievance of the applicants that the learned District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to permit the Asstt. Police Prosecutor to cross-examine the witnesses, tendered in evidence, by the applicants. However, after going through the impugned order, I am of opinion, that the District Magistrate acting in the capacity of a judicial authority, in an inquiry, was empowered to permit the Assistant Police Prosecutor to cross-examine the witnesses of the applicants. In an inquiry conducted before him the procedure followed by him does not appear to be improper, and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the applicants by granting such permission by the impugned order, which is an interlocutory order, as the rights of the parties are not in any way effected, nor the applicants have been prohibited from exercising their right. Revisions dismissed.