Judgment : The petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobi-chettipalayam passed under section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in M.C. No. 6 of 1979 on his file. 2. The property involved in this petition is a land measuring 3 acres and 59 cents in Survey No. 318 in Punjaidarapalayam Village. There were disputes in regard to the lease of the property between the petitioners on the one hand and Samiappa Gounder and others on the other. The Inspector of Police, Sathiamangalam sent a report to the Executive First Class Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam, alleging immient danger to public tranquility. In pursuance of that report, an order under section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was issued by the said Magistrate. That order, as I earlier pointed out, is challenged on the ground that the mandatory provisions of section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have not-been satisfied. That ground appears to be well — founded. The order under section 111 runs thus: “Whereas it has been made to appear to me by credible information that there is every likelihood of breach of peace in the village and clash because of the strained feelings between the C. Ps. and the prosecution witnesses in this case, the counter petitioners are hereby required to attend in person or by duly authorised agent at this Court on 8th January, 1980 at 3-00 p.m. to show cause why they should not be required to execute a bond of Rs. 1,000 (one thousand only) as such and also a security for a like sum each to keep peace for a term of one year”. In K.V. Shanmugham v. State (Inspector of Police), Palladam1, a learned Judge of this Court, took the view that notice under section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has to satisfy a double test. The first is that the notice must furnish all the information which is laid against a person or persons and the second is before issuing a notice, the Magistrate has to satisfy himself that the situation calls for issuing of a show-cause order. The first is that the notice must furnish all the information which is laid against a person or persons and the second is before issuing a notice, the Magistrate has to satisfy himself that the situation calls for issuing of a show-cause order. Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requires that the Magistrate acting under section 107 shall make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond, the term for which it has to be in force and the number of sureties required. But a perusal of the order of the Magistrate shows that the substance of the information received has not been set forth. Even the summons which followed the notice does not contain the information received or at least the essence of the most important part of the information. The twin test laid in K. V. Shanmugham v. State (Inspector of Police), Palladam1, has not been satisfied in this case. Consequently, it must be held that notice under section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has not been issued in accordance with the requirement of that section. It is a well-established principle of law that when. an act is required to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner, or not at all. For the foregoing reasons, the order under section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is liable to be cuashed and is hereby quashed. Petition allowed. Petition allowed.