Judgment :- “A” party counter petitioners in M.C.No. 30 of 1993 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagercoil, have filed this petition under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same. 2. Short facts are: The Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagercoil, had passed on order in M.C.No. 30 of 1993 on 211. 1993, directing both ‘A’ and ‘B’ parties that they should not celebrate Karthigai festival in Eswari Kathirakaliamman Koil in the village Esanthangu and he had directed the Inspector of Police, Eraniyal to see that neither ‘A’ or ‘B’ party celebrates the festival in the said temple between 211. 1993, and 211. 1993. 3. Mr.T.R. Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the impugned Order does not disclose under what provision of law the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub Divisioanl Magistrate, Nagercoil had acted in giving such a direction and thus, there is total non-application of mind in passing the impugned order and hence, it is liable to be quashed. He would further submit that with regard to the management of the temple, a scheme decree was passed in O.S.No. 37 of 1971 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in which both ‘A’ and ‘B’ parties and their predecessors are parties and only that decree is to be worked out to find who is to conduct the festival in the temple for Karthigai and it is not the province of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass the impugned order and on this ground also, it is liable to be quashed. Per contra, Mr.A. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the ‘B’ party would submit that reasons are given in the order for passing the impugned directions and hence, it is not liable to be quashed. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival counsels. The impugned order does not disclose on what authority or under what provision of law under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Sub Divisional Magistrate is acting in passing the impugned order. That itself would show that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the Sub Divisional Magistrate in passing this impugned order and on that score, it is liable to be quashed. That itself would show that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the Sub Divisional Magistrate in passing this impugned order and on that score, it is liable to be quashed. This Court has held in Jayavelu v. Inspector of Police, Oomachikulam Circle, Madurai District, 1988 L.W. (Crl.) 38, where preliminary order passed under Sec.111 of Criminal Procedure Code without indicating under which section of law as to whether under Sec.107, 108, 109 or 110 of Criminal Procedure Code the Executive Magistrate was acting, there was total non-application of mind and on that ground, that order was quashed. Here also, as I have pointed out, no provision of law whatsoever is mentioned while the Sub Divisional Magistrate had passed the impugned order. So, it cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. 5. Regarding the second ground, no doubt with recard to the administration of the temple, the scheme decree is to be worked out. Both parties were parties thereto also. I do not propose to further consider the second submission as to whether even in such a case if circumstances and facts exist, any order under Sec. 145, Criminal Procedure Code can be passed or not, since it is not necessary in this case as the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the first ground itself. 6. In view of the above this petition is allowed and the order passed in M.C.No. 30 of 1993 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagercoil is hereby quashed.