JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated December 8, 1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge: Bali, by which the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Juhar Mai, on July 22, 1975, filed an application under Section 133 Cr. PC. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali, mentioning therein that Pomaram has installed a cabin under the 'Neem' tree in village Sesli without any valid permission from Gram Panchayat. The members of the Gram Panchayat inspected the site and directed Pomaram to remove the cabin in which he is running the hotel/stall. Inspite of the orders passed by the Panchayat Samiti and the Gram Panchayat, the cabin was not been removed by Pomaram. He, therefore, prayed that the cabin may be removed. On this application, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, without passing any conditional order, ordered for the issuance of the notice to the non-applicant. The order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated July 22,1975 reads as under:- "Issue notice to non-applicant". In pursuance to this order dated July 22, 1975, notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why the wooden stall, installed by him, near the Southern side of the house of Juharmal should not be removed. It was also, mentioned in the notice that the proceedings were initiated against him by the Panchayat Samiti, Bali and the Sarpanch. Gram Panchayat, Sesli, but the shop was not removed. It was, also, mentioned that if the petitioner has any objection then he may appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali, on July 26, 1985, and file his reply otherwise ex-parte proceedings would be initiated against him. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali, after holding an enquiry, by its order dated May 9, 1988, came to the conclusion that by way of cabin which has been installed under the 'Neem' tree, the way has been narrowed down, which obstructs in the private rights of the applicant Juharmal and the villagers and the cattle of the village Sesli are deprived of the sheds of the 'Neem' tree, He, therefore, ordered for the removal of the cabin and, also, made the earlier order as absolute. Dissatisfied with the order dated May 9, 1988, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali, the petitioner preferred a revision-petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, who by his order dated December 8,1988, dismissed the revision-petition filed by the petitioner. Dissatisfied with the order dated May 9, 1988, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali, the petitioner preferred a revision-petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, who by his order dated December 8,1988, dismissed the revision-petition filed by the petitioner. It is against the order, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner, that the present petition under Section 482 Cr. PC. has been filed. 3. I have heard Mr. B.S. Rathore learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. S. Mehta learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 4. For the initiation of the proceedings under Section 133 Cr. PC it was necessary for the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on receiving the report of the Police Officer or other information and on taking such evidence, if any, as he thinks fit, to consider that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from the public way, and such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, within a time to be fixed in the order, to remove such obstruction or the nuisance. Under Section 133 Cr. PC., before initiation of the enquiry or the proceedings, passing of the conditional order is essential and an omission to make such a conditional order renders all the subsequent proceedings void. The law enjoins a duty upon the Magistrate after the receipt of the report of the Police Officer or other information and on taking such evidence if any that there is unlawful obstruction and after applying his mind has to make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction to remove such obstruction within the time fixed in the order. The condition precedent for initiating the proceedings is, therefore, the passing of the conditional order. As the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, before issuing the notice did not pass any conditional order he merely order for the issuance of the notice, therefore, the whole proceedings stand vitiated and deserve to be quashed. 5. In the result, I allow this petition and set-aside the order dated May 9, 1988, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bali, as well as the order dated December 8, 1988, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, confirming the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali.Revision allowed. *******