Judgment : The order passed by Collector and District Magistrate, Kamarajar District, Virudunagar, in Roc. C. 1.83846/95, dated 11. 1996 under Sec. 144(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is being sought to be revised by the petitioner herein by invoking the revisional jurisdiction for want of legality and propriety. 2. On ordering the notice of motion, the Public Prosecutor entered appearance on behalf of the respondent, who is the Superintendent of Police, Kamarajar District, Virudunagar. 3. Dr.K.Krishnaswamy, President of the Federation of Tamil Nadu Devendrakula Vellalar Association, a permanent resident of Coimbatore, in his capacity as the President was stated to have been touring the southern districts of Tamil Nadu, particularly, the Kamarajar District and addressed the people of Dalit Community on several occasions during the last quarter of 1995. It was further stated that during the said sojourn, he delivered the speech inciting the communal violence, with the result the communal clashes erupted leading to murder, arsoning, looting, damage to the public property and hurt to the people of that area, which in spite of the gearing up of the law and order enforcing machinery lasted for a considerable time, however, it was repelled by deploying and taking stern steps by the Government. It was also stated that by now peace has been restored and the communal violence has been quelled up totally. On getting the various materials, reports and other useful information against the revision petitioner by virtue of the power vested under Sec. 144(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the District Magistrate cum Collector of Kamarajar District, since felt the urgent need of promulgating the said order, passed it on 11. 1996 in the above reference and caused it to be served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was also called upon to show cause by 21. 1996 as to why the impugned order passed under Sec.144 (1), Crl.P.C. should not be made absolute and that order was said to have been served on 11. 1996 as per the acknowledgement and signature made by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner had denied every one of the allegations made in the impugned order to the extent that he stood for the cause of violence and communal clashes erupted. 1996 as per the acknowledgement and signature made by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner had denied every one of the allegations made in the impugned order to the extent that he stood for the cause of violence and communal clashes erupted. However, he would admit through the Bar that he had toured that village only to advise the mentally affected people and provided them with mental solace and physical help and did nothing more than that at any point of time. However, the restraint order was thus promulgated against him, which was passed in a hasty manner and served upon him with no opportunity to explain his grievances and place his explanation before the District Authorities. 5. It was at this moment, aggrieved very much at the impugned order, the present revision was sought to be admitted as aforesaid. 6. I have heard the Bar for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for and against the impugned order passed. 7. It was the main plank of grievance projected by Mr.Balaguru, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, that though the petitioner has very right to deny the averments and allegations made in the impugned order, he was not given any opportunity with adequate time to place his explanation before the District Authority on or before 21. 1996. But however, in the meanwhile he was restricted in toto not to enter into the District itself under the pretext of maintaining the law and order problem. Admittedly, it appears that the District Magistrate-cum-Collector of Kamarajar District has passed the impugned order on 11. 1996. 1996. But however, in the meanwhile he was restricted in toto not to enter into the District itself under the pretext of maintaining the law and order problem. Admittedly, it appears that the District Magistrate-cum-Collector of Kamarajar District has passed the impugned order on 11. 1996. This restraint order was in pursuance of Sec. 144(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sec.144 reads like this: “Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger: (1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub Divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by Sec. 134, direct any person to abstain, from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, or an affray. .(2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed, ex parte. .(3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area. (4) No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof: Provided, that, if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, but, for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification. .(5) Any Magistrate, may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made under this section, by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him, or by his predecessor in office. .(6) The State Government may, either on its own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind, or alter any order made by it under the proviso to Sub-sec. (4). .(7) Where an application under Sub-sec.(5) or Sub-sec.(6) is received, the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing.” 8. A casual reading of the above provisions of law would clearly reveal that the authority, namely, the Executive Magistrate or the District Collector apprehending the danger to human life or the breach of peace or otherwise as spelt out, may pass an Order even ex parte restraining any person from causing such disturbance or violence. The matter does not end with this according to the law. It is quite obvious and manifest that on getting the grounds for passing such a restraint Order, an opportunity needs to be provided to such an aggrieved person to show cause and give explanations and submissions before the authority for which he must be given the proper and adequate time and upon doing so, the exercise spelt out in Sub-secs. (5), (6) and (7) has to be exercised. It is thus seen that the three stages of opportunities have been provided to the aggrieved person as well as to the Magistrate. By virtue of it, it is always open for the revision petitioner herein, if aggrieved or if he want to controvent the grounds alleged in the impugned order to place such of the materials either by appearing himself or through a pleader before the District Collector and get his grievance vindicated. 9. By virtue of it, it is always open for the revision petitioner herein, if aggrieved or if he want to controvent the grounds alleged in the impugned order to place such of the materials either by appearing himself or through a pleader before the District Collector and get his grievance vindicated. 9. The only grievance projected before me is that the revision petitioner was not given adequate time so as to make himself appear before the District Collector, Kamarajar District, in order to put forth his case, explanation and other relevant materials nor had any opportunity to exercise his right pursuant to the above section of law and that therefore the impugned order has become tainted and vitiated. 10. Understandably it is noticed from the records that the restraint order was passed on 11. 1996 and stated to have been served upon the petitioner on the next day, 11. 1996. The last sentence of the operative portion of the order reads like this: “You are also called upon to show cause by 21. 1996 as to why this order under Sec. 144, Crl.P.C. should not be made absolute against you.” From the above, it is noticed that not even two days’ time was given to (the petitioner. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is a permanent resident of Coimbatore Town. It is not known whether the impugned order was served upon him, but the date of service has been shown as 11. 1996, If this is the case then I do not find any difficulty in holding that the District Collector has not passed the impugned order in accordance with law as extracted above. Adequate time and proper opportunity must necessarily be given to a citizen, whoever he may be, while a restraint order is being passed against him forbidding him to enter into a particular area on the ground of serious allegation and so on. Apparently, the mandate in Sub-secs. (3), (4) and (5) of Sec. 144, Crl.P.C. has not been implemented nor even adhered to in the instant case. For the said reasoning, I am not inclined to accept the case of the respondent, but however, I am able to identify every force in the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioner. 11. Apparently, the mandate in Sub-secs. (3), (4) and (5) of Sec. 144, Crl.P.C. has not been implemented nor even adhered to in the instant case. For the said reasoning, I am not inclined to accept the case of the respondent, but however, I am able to identify every force in the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioner. 11. It is by now stated that the violent activity has been totally wiped out and total normalcy has been restored by the law and order enforcing agency and total peace has been restored. Of course, it is the imperative duty of the District Administrative Authority and the Law and Order Enforcing Agency to maintain peace, public order as well as law and order and to give security to every citizen to that locality. They are not expected to be evasive for any extraneous reasoning. Under these circumstances, though I am able to find some irregularities and laches in the proceedings adopted by the District Collector, Kamarajar District, I do not propose to give any of may opinion on the merits of this case. While saying so, I have made up my mind to direct the District Collector, Kamarajar District to give adequate time opportunity to the petitioner and hear him in full by getting his written or oral explanations either by himself or through his counsel on date fixed by him therefor and pass the order, if any, in accordance with the procedure indicated above. The revision petitioner is also hereby directed to appear before the District Collector by himself or through his counsel with all his written memorandum or explanations or documents, if any, and give his explanation for proper and expeditious adjudication of the matter. This legal exercise is to be completed by the District Collector within a period of 15 days from today. The revision petitioner is permitted to go to the headquarters of Kamarajar District alone and that too to appear before the District Collector only for the purpose of the compliance of the directions given above and under no circumstances he is permitted to go elsewhere or for any other purposes in the District. In other respects, the impugned order hereby stands sustained. The District Collector is further directed to complete the proceedings in accordance with law and directions given above and intimate about the disposal to this Court within two weeks. 12. In other respects, the impugned order hereby stands sustained. The District Collector is further directed to complete the proceedings in accordance with law and directions given above and intimate about the disposal to this Court within two weeks. 12. In the result, the revision, is dismissed at this admission stage with the above directions to be complied with. Registry is hereby directed to transmit copy of this order to the District Collector, Kamarajar District, Virudunagar immediately for compliance and also give copy of this order to the respective parties.