R. D. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, owner of Tourist vehicles, challenges the order dated 15-2-1993 of the District Magistrate, Indore passed under Section 144, Cr. P. C. whereby the petitioner has been restrained from operating the tourist buses from a private land near 'rajgarh Kothi' Indore. ( 2 ) THE petitioner carries on business of travelling agency and plies omni buses in the name and style of 'vijayant Travels'. He has been granted permits under Section 88 (9) of the Motor Vehicles Act as All India Tourist Permits. He further holds licences for Special Contract Carriages. ( 3 ) THE R. T. A. Indore has in exercise of powers under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 239 of the M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1974 declared Indira Complex near A-B Road as 'bus-stand' for Stage Carriages. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has taken an open piece of land measuring 1600 Sq. ft. (Annexure 'c') on lease. He is operating All India Tourist Buses and Contract Carriage Buses from the said premises. ( 5 ) LOOKING to the number of buses being operated from Indore City the R. T. A. in consultation with local administration and operators of All India Tourist Buses declared open land situated opposite to 'dhakkanwala Kuwan' as the terminus from where all the omni-buses shall start their Inter-state journey and terminate their journey at that place. However, there was agitation against declaration of that Bus-stand. As such, the petitioner acquired on lease 25000 Sq. ft. of open land near 'vitthal Bhavan'. He thereafter began operating tourist buses from an open place near and opposite to Noshirwan Co. and abutting to Agra-Bombay Road. ( 6 ) THE RTA, as referred above, has declared Indira Complex Bus-stand for being used as Stage Carriages and Satelite Town Services and Sarvate Bus-stand has been declared exclusively for the buses of M. P. S. R. T. C. ( 7 ) THE respondent Collector-cum-District Magistrate vide Order referred above and in exercise of powers under Section 144 of Cr. P. C. directed the petitioner to refrain from using the open place of land situated opposite Noshirwan Co. P. C. directed the petitioner to refrain from using the open place of land situated opposite Noshirwan Co. (P) Ltd. , near Rajgarh Kothi for operating or plying his omni-buses i. e. All India Tourist Buses and further directed to operate those buses from Indira Complex Bus stand which is illegal and against the provisions of Rule 85 (6) of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It has also been submitted that it is undue restriction on the enjoyment of the property rights of the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE petitioner, therefore, claimed relief of quashing of the order Annexure 'e'. ( 9 ) AS against it the respondent in his reply has submitted that the said order has been passed to avoid accidents as the operation of buses from that area has created traffic hazard. The open space is abutting to Agra-Bombay Road which is a national highway. The traffic on that road is very high and, therefore, operation of buses from open place near Agra-Bombay Road is likely to create not only a traffic hazard but is likely to endanger the human life as well. Because of the heavy traffics on the Agra-Bombay Road, the place is not suitable for being used as stand for private buses. ( 10 ) IT has also been submitted that an alternative remedy of revision against the order passed under Section 144, Cr. P. C. is available to the petitioner and, therefore, extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on the High Court may not be exercised in cases like this. ( 11 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is firstly that the District Magistrate has based his order on the presumption that the Bus stand of Indira Complex can be used by private operators on contract carriage and All India Tourist Buses which is illegal and is against the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder. Secondly, there are no grounds for proceeding under Section 144, Cr. P. C. The order has been passed without making any enquiry. As such, it is without jurisdiction and wholly illegal. ( 12 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the casual reference of Indira Complex Bus-stand will not make the order under Section 144, Cr. P. C. The order has been passed without making any enquiry. As such, it is without jurisdiction and wholly illegal. ( 12 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the casual reference of Indira Complex Bus-stand will not make the order under Section 144, Cr. P. C. illegal and that looking to the urgency in the matter the District Magistrate was empowered to pass ex parte order without formal enquiry. ( 13 ) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner has been granted All India Tourist Permits by State Transport Authority in accordance with the Rules framed under Sub-Section (14) of Section 88 of the Act. Rule 85 (6) of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides. "the tourist vehicle shall not be parked on any bus stand used by stage carriage and shall not operate from such bus-stand". It is also not in dispute that the Indira Complex Bus-stand has been declared to be a bus-stand for stage-carriages. Under these circumstances, the All India Tourist Buses owned and operated by the petitioner could not be plied or operated from that bus-stand. ( 14 ) THE impugned order (Annexure 'e') in paragraph 2 contains an observation that as per notification No. 19755/r. T. A. /93 dated 10-1-1993 all type of buses have been directed to be operated from Indira Complex near Navlakha Chouraha. The recitation in Hindi runs as follows :- this observation of the District Magistrate is against sub-rule (6) of Rule 85, referred above. Thus, the impugned order is based on certain observations which are contrary to Rules. ( 15 ) THE respondents have filed a copy of the notification Annexure R/1 dated 21-1-1993 which directs that the Tourist buses shall operate from Indira Complex Bus-stand. This notification is clearly in violation of sub-rule (6) of Rule 85 as referred above. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that if the petitioner follows the notification dated 21-1-1993 which probably has been issued after the filing of this petition, he is likely to be deprived of his permits of tourist buses as the same would be in contravention of the Rules referred above. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents thereafter submitted that the Transport Authorities have got an authority to fix a place for starting and terminating the operation of All India Tourist Buses. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents thereafter submitted that the Transport Authorities have got an authority to fix a place for starting and terminating the operation of All India Tourist Buses. He has passed this order in exercise of that power. This is not in dispute as the impugned order does not contain any direction that the person should operate contract carriages from a place declared for the purpose. As against it the order contains an observation amounting to a direction that he should operate from a bus-stand meant for stage carriages which is illegal as observed above. ( 17 ) NOW so far as the order under Section 144, Cr. P. C. is concerned, it appears the same has been passed without any enquiry. Though, it is true that there is no express mention of an enquiry before making the order but as Sub-Section (1) specifically requires that the order should set out the material facts, it would not be possible for the Magistrate to set-out the facts unless he makes an enquiry or unless he is satisfied about the facts from personal knowledge or on a report made to him which he prima facie expects as correct. AIR 1961 SC 884 : (1961 (2) Cri LJ 16) (Babulal Parate v. The State of Maharashtra.) ( 18 ) IN this case as observed in the order Annexure 'e' the Deputy Superintendent Police (Traffic) has made a report that operation of buses of national permits from the open land near 'rajgarh Kothi' is likely to cause obstruction to the vehicles running on National Highway and may result in a serious accident. But it nowhere contains any observation as to whether the District Magistrate is satisfied on the report of Dy. S. P. (Traffic ). No further enquiry in the case has been made. Learned counsel for respondents has submitted a survey report showing that nearly 80 motor vehicles, light, heavy and middle and 59 two wheelers pass within two minutes from Agra-Bombay Road and especially at the cross road near the disputed bus-stand. But this survey had been made on 30/03/1983 i. e. much after the order passed by the District Magistrate. This material was never put to the District Magistrate and he has not based his order on this heavy traffic on the Agra-Bombay Road. But this survey had been made on 30/03/1983 i. e. much after the order passed by the District Magistrate. This material was never put to the District Magistrate and he has not based his order on this heavy traffic on the Agra-Bombay Road. Though it is true that the District Magistrate is empowered to put certain restrictions on the movement of vehicles on or through a particular road in order to regulate and control the traffic but the same should be based on sound reasonings. It is not the case of the respondent-State that during the particular season because of some functions festivals or the like, there is increase in the traffic or rush of pedestrians and, therefore, the order under S. 144, Cr. P. C. is necessary. ( 19 ) LEARNED District Magistrate has not discussed any fact of urgency in passing the ex parte order and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner for explaining the position. ( 20 ) LEARNED counsel for respondents has submitted that the Magistrate is empowered to put anticipatory instructions as the area is prone to accident and is likely to cause traffic hazard. Though it is true that the anticipatory action under Section 144, Cr. P. C. can be taken by a Magistrate in an emergency where danger to public order is genuinely apprehended. But it cannot be said that Section 144 can be used for suppression of lawful activity or for doing certain acts which are against the law and the rules made thereunder. The satisfaction of the Magistrate as to the necessity of promulgating an order under Section 144, Cr. P. C. is not made entirely subjective by the Section where challenge to this order is made, the Magistrate has to give an opportunity to the person concerned of appearing before him and for showing cause against the order. ( 21 ) AS there was no urgency (since the same has not been observed by the District Magistrate) the Magistrate was bound to give an opportunity to the person liable to be affected by the order to explain his position and show cause for not passing the order under S. 144 of Cr. P. C. ( 22 ) NOTHING of this sort has been done in this case and, therefore, the order under Section 144 appears to be without jurisdiction. ( 23 ) LEARNED Dy. P. C. ( 22 ) NOTHING of this sort has been done in this case and, therefore, the order under Section 144 appears to be without jurisdiction. ( 23 ) LEARNED Dy. A. G. appears for the State has submitted that the order under Section 144, Cr. P. C. was only for two months and that period is expiring very soon. As such, no interference in the impugned order is required. Though it is true that the Distt. Magistrate is authorised to take action under Section 144, Cr. P. C. even as a temporary measure for meeting certain contingencies but the order should be based on sound reasoning and by adopting proper procedure. Any order based on wrong assumptions of legal provisions and amounting to a direction for doing illegal act even it be for temporary period cannot be sustained. ( 24 ) FROM the discussion above it is clear that the order is based on an assumption regarding use of Indira Complex Bus-stand by the All India Tourist permit holders which is contrary to the Rules and the Order has been passed without following a proper procedure of giving an opportunity to the petitioner against the proposed order and the same being without jurisdiction, cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. ( 25 ) AS a result the petition succeeds and the order dated 15-2-1993 (Annexure 'e') passed by the District Magistrate, Indore is quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. The security amount, if any, be refused to the petitioner after due verification. Petition allowed. .