JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—Through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed that impugned order Annexure-A directing the petitioner to remove the wall and other structure raised by him on the public highway known as Bilaspur-Sawarghat-Chandigarh Road allegedly causing obstruction in the use of the said road and to show-cause as to why this order should not be enforced and made absolute, culminating into proceedings under section 133 of the Cr. P. C. and ultimate order dated 13th November, 1991 making orders vide Annexure-A as absolute by directing the petitioner to remove the construction in question within 72 hours of the said order, being illegal, be quashed. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of land bearing khasra No, 155/20 at village Nal sub-Tehsil Naina Devi, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, regarding which land acquisition proceedings are still continuing as pending before the Land Acquisition Collector, Shimla. There is also no controversy that petitioner has constructed a shop by raising a stone wall and other structure which according to him is in his own land whereas, as per the respondents, the said structure is on the highway causing obstruction to the traffic. The petitioner alleges that he started the construction of hotel building etc. on the aforesaid land in the year 1970. This part of the allegation has neither been denied nor admitted by the respondents. There is no dispute that the respondents decided to widen the road referred to above and for that purpose land acquisition proceedings regarding the acquisition of a portion of the land contained in khasra No. 155/20 had been initiated. For the purpose of deciding this petition, other facts mentioned therein are not needed to be Retailed. 3. The grievance voiced by the petitioner through his Counsel Shri B. B. Vaid, is that respondents did not adhere to the mandatory procedure pertaining to the recording of the evidence etc. before passing the ultimate order as is envisaged under section 137 read with section 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His submission is that the respondent merely on the basis of his inspection conducted by him made an order Annexure-A, dated October 24, 1991, as absolute. before passing the ultimate order as is envisaged under section 137 read with section 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His submission is that the respondent merely on the basis of his inspection conducted by him made an order Annexure-A, dated October 24, 1991, as absolute. The respondents on the other hand has contended that all that is required under the law is that an enquiry be held and spot be inspected and no oral evidence Is required ; that the spot inspection was carried out by the respondent who observed that the above said structure has caused an obstruction and it has become hazardous for the to and fro traffic on the main highway. He further contended that the construction in question is still continuing by the petitioner. 4. It is well settled that section 133, Cr. P. C. applies only to existing and not to potential nuisance, i. e f to what may become nuisance in the future nor does this section applies when the nuisance has ceased Also the power under this section being summary, it should be sparingly used and its provisions should not be so worked as to become itself a nuisance to the community at large Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to "Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquillity" and its Part-B commencement from section 133 onwards deals with "Public Nuisances" Section 133, as observed above, gives the power to the Magistrate to make a conditional order. Section 134 deals with service or notification of said order. Section 135 envisages that a person to whom the order is addressed either should obey the order so passed or he should show-cause against it. The subsequent section 136 lays down the consequence of his failing to do so. Sections 137, 138 lays down with the procedure where existence of public right is denied and where he appears to show-cause to the notice issued to him under section 133, referred to above,. Section 139 gives powers to the Magistrate to direct local inspection and examination of an expert. 5. In the instant case, the lower Courts record shows that the reply was filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice where he denied the existence of a public right. In the circumstances sections 137 and 138 were attracted. Section 139 gives powers to the Magistrate to direct local inspection and examination of an expert. 5. In the instant case, the lower Courts record shows that the reply was filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice where he denied the existence of a public right. In the circumstances sections 137 and 138 were attracted. Now closely reading the two sections pertaining to the procedure referred to in sections 137 and 3 38 respectively, when a person Is served with an order under section 137 appears, it becomes obligatory on the Magistrate to, firstly, ask him (defaulter) whether he denies the existence of a public right in question and in case he does so it becomes then obligatory on the said Magistrate to conduct an enquiry into the matter under section 137 before holding an enquiry referred to in under section 138, secondly, at this enquiry, the person (defaulter) is required to produce his evidence in support of his denial and in case such evidence is found to be reliable, the jurisdiction or the Magistrate is ousted and proceedings are then required to be stayed until the matter has been decided by a Civil Court. Lastly, if the person does not raise any question of public right or if (when raised) there is no reliable evidence in support of such right, then such Magistrate shall proceed to enquire under section 138 and pass final order- The above said mandatory provisions of law show that it is illegal to pass final order merely upon an enquiry under section 137 without thereafter proceeding under section 138. In other words, the procedure detailed under section 137 is imperative. In the instant case admittedly no such procedure under section 137 and thereafter enquiry under section 138 which were mandatory have been followed by the respondents Thus the ultimate order passed on November 13, 1991 is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. In other words, the procedure detailed under section 137 is imperative. In the instant case admittedly no such procedure under section 137 and thereafter enquiry under section 138 which were mandatory have been followed by the respondents Thus the ultimate order passed on November 13, 1991 is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. At this stage, it may be pointed out that though no certified copy of the order dated November 13, 1991 has been produced by the petitioner for the reasons stated in his petition though denied by the respondents, this Court also has got power to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety—of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed or as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Courts, and in addition thereto may when calling for such record that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record Thus non-production of the ultimate impugned judgment dated November 13, 1991, does not in any way debar the petitioner to seek the relief sought for by him. In view of the above the order dated 13th November, 1991, making necessary order vide Annexure-A dated 24th October, 1991, as an absolute one, is quashed. The earlier order dated 24th October, 1991, (Annexure-A) being conditional order based on the police report, cannot be said to be an illegal one nor, therefore, the proceeding can be ordered to be quashed. In the circumstances, the respondent is directed to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law by affording the latter an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his denial regarding the existence of the alleged public right. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.