G. N. RAY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against Order, dated 7th August, 1987 passed by the learned Trial Judge dismissing the writ petition moved by the appellant, Sri Madan Mohan Das. ( 2 ) IT appears that previously in a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Case No. 171 of 1985, an order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 20th December, 1986, inter alia, directing renovation of a nulla for discharging the foul water by Sri Madan Mohan Das on a finding that Sri Das had a right to discharge such water and had also right of maintenance and renovation of a nulla for the purpose on the basis of a solenama filed in the said proceeding. As the respondent opposite party Sri Monoranjan Das did not allow such renovation of the drain to be effected, a proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated before the Executive Magistrate, Uluberia and the learned Magistrate on consideration of the facts and circumstances directed the Officer-in-Charge, Shyampur Police Station to ensure that the opposite party should not create any obstruction at the time of renovation and/ or minor construction of the disputed 'nulla' until further orders. As such order was not carried out by the Officer-in-Charge of the said Shyampur Police Station, a writ petition was moved before this Court but the same was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. As aforesaid the instant appeal has been preferred against the said order of the learned Trial Judge. ( 3 ) IT has been submitted before us that whether the order passed by the learned-Magistrate was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case should not be decided or gone into by the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station. On the contrary, he had a duty and obligation to carry out the direction contained in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. If the opposite party was aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the footing that such order was illegal and should not have been passed, the opposite party could have moved before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. If the opposite party was aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the footing that such order was illegal and should not have been passed, the opposite party could have moved before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the opposite party in the said Criminal proceeding, a respondent in the instant appeal, has submitted that in a proceeding under Section 133, such order should not have been passed by the learned Magistrate. ( 5 ) IT is not necessary for us to decide as to whether or not the order was a proper order in a proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears to us that in a judicial proceeding when the police was directed to render assistance by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction to entertain the said application the Officer-in-Charge was not competent to question the propriety of the said order, but he had an obligation to carry out the direction given in the said order. If such direction passed by the learned Magistrate in a Criminal proceeding is not carried out by the police but they are permitted to sit on appeal over the order and/or to assess the correctness or the propriety of the order the very sanctity of the order passed in a judicial proceeding will come to an end. The party affected by an order passed in a proceeding is not without remedy and such party can certainly move the appropriate authority for getting the order, set aside. But we are of the view that the police authorities are not permitted to question the correctness of the order and to refrain from implementing the direction given in the judicial proceeding. ( 6 ) IT a1so appears that subsequently by order, dated 5th February, 1988. the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Uluberia has also passed an order directing the Sub-divisional Police Officer to give police protection for implementation of the order of the learned Executive, Magistrate. In the aforesaid circumstances and also in view of the subsequent order, dated 5th February, 1988 the Sub-divisional Police Officer and the Officer-in-Charge, Shyampur Police Station should give effect to such direction unless the same is set aside or modified by any other appropriate authority. In the aforesaid circumstances and also in view of the subsequent order, dated 5th February, 1988 the Sub-divisional Police Officer and the Officer-in-Charge, Shyampur Police Station should give effect to such direction unless the same is set aside or modified by any other appropriate authority. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, Sri Monoranjan Das has submitted that a civil suit has been instituted in the court of the learned Munsif, Uluberia in respect of this disputed 'nulla' and a prayer for interim order has also been made, but in his fairness he has submitted that no interim order has been passed as yet. ( 8 ) IT is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on the merits of the said because we have already indicated that it any appropriate order suit is passed by any competent court, the police will give effect to such order. But in the absence of such order by any competent authority, the police is under obligation to carry out the instruction passed by the learned Magistrate in a judicial proceeding. ( 9 ) WITH this observation, we dispose of this appeal treating the same as on day's list and in view of such disposal of the appeal no other order need be passed .