JUDGMENT - CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS T.K., J.:---The petitioner being the Food Inspector of Thane Municipal Corporation filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane against the respondents 1 and 2 under section 16(1)(e) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act alleging the adulteration of Deshi Butter by them. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane in Criminal Case No. 2163/83 taking cognizance of the complaint had issued summons to the respondents 1 and 2. It appears that an application has been moved by the respondents 1 and 2 before the learned Magistrate contending that at the instance of Deshi Makkhan Vyapari Sangh, Suit No. 284/66 which was originally filed in Bombay High Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction and subsequently transferred to Bombay City Civil Court and renumbered as Suit No. 7491/71, wherein the Union of India, State of Maharashtra, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Central Committee for Food Standards through its Secretary are impleaded as the defendants. It is further contended in the application that by order dated 31-3-1967, an injunction was obtained in that suit restraining the defendants therein from proceeding further with the prosecution launched and to be launched in future against the members of the Sangh. Respondents further urged before the Magistrate that the Magistrate should adjourn the case sine die. The Magistrate by his order dated 3-11-1989 rejected that application and decided to proceed with the matter, on the ground that the Municipal Corporation, Thane is not a party to the injunction order, and the injunction order is not binding on it. Against this order, the respondents 1 and 2 filed a Criminal Revision Application No. 21/90 before the Sessions Judge, Thane. The said revision was allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate was set aside. The Revisional Court has issued a direction to postpone the Criminal Case No. 2163/83 from time to time so long as the injunction in Civil Suit No. 7491/71 pending in the City Civil Court. The said order of the Revisional Court is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard Counsel for the petitioner Shri R.S. Apte and the Counsel Shri N.Y. Gupte for the respondents 1 and 2 and Shri Dinesh Adsule A.P.P. for the State. On a reading of the revisional order, I find that the stand taken by the Revisional Court was quite erroneous. Admittedly the Thane Municipal Corporation is not a party to the suit. Heard Counsel for the petitioner Shri R.S. Apte and the Counsel Shri N.Y. Gupte for the respondents 1 and 2 and Shri Dinesh Adsule A.P.P. for the State. On a reading of the revisional order, I find that the stand taken by the Revisional Court was quite erroneous. Admittedly the Thane Municipal Corporation is not a party to the suit. Therefore the injunction order passed in the aforesaid suit is not binding on it. Moreover, I do not think the injunction order obtained by the respondents 1 and 2 is easily comprehensible. The injunction order runs as thus:--- "It is ordered that the defendants not proceed further with the prosecution launched against the members of the sixth plaintiffs association save and except that in case where it is felt that the evidence with regard to the witnesses in relation to the matter of public analysis of the samples of the food alleged to be adulterated is likely to be launched further prosecution against the members of the sixth plaintiff association, but shall not to proceed with such prosecution save and except for the purposes mentioned hereinabove." No authority or Court or any person could act upon this order because it is so vague and uncomprehensible as to what idea that has been attempted to convey through that order. On top of all, the order does not injunct any Court from proceeding with the matter of adulteration of any milk or milk products. If at all, that order could be construed as an injunction it was only against the defendants in the suit. Therefore order of injunction does not constitute to a bar in proceeding with the matter by the Magistrate. The Magistrate is under no obligation to postpone the matter as prayed for by the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the observation of the learned Revision Judge is quite illegal and erroneous and the revisional order is liable to be set aside. 3. In the result writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane is directed to proceed with trial of the criminal case No. 2163/83 and pass final order within 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. C.C. is directed to be expedited. 3. In the result writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane is directed to proceed with trial of the criminal case No. 2163/83 and pass final order within 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. C.C. is directed to be expedited. Prayer Clause (a):--- Record and proceeding of judgment and order dated 26-2-1991 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/90 arising out of judgment and order dated 3-11-1989 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane below Exhibit 9 in Criminal Case No. 2163/83 be called for and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof, the impugned judgment and order dated 26-2-1991 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/90 which is at Exhibit 'C' hereto be quashed and set aside and the order dated 3-11-1989 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane below Exhibit 9 in Criminal Case No. 2163/83 be restored to file: 4. Before parting with this order I am constraint to make certain observations in this case. By the order impugned an attempt is being made by the so called Association to throw into the cold storage all the proceedings, which are taken and are going to be taken against the members of the Association under the Food Adulteration Act for the last several years. Neither the Union of India nor the State nor any authorities concerned in this subject seems to be alive or serious to the problem that has been created by the interim order of injunction of the Civil Court relied upon by the Revision Court. A very disturbing scenario emerges from the facts of the case. The injunction order was issued on 31-3-1967. No attempt was made by the Union of India or by the State either to vacate order of injunction or to get the suit tried in an expeditious manner. No statistics are available before me as to how many Food Adulteration cases were stayed at the instance of members of the Deshi Makkhan Vyapari Sangh in any other parts of the State. Injunction order has its far reaching consequences and a situation has arisen that provisions of the Food Adulteration Act cannot be effectively implemented in the State of Maharashtra. Injunction order has its far reaching consequences and a situation has arisen that provisions of the Food Adulteration Act cannot be effectively implemented in the State of Maharashtra. Consequences are very fatal and health of the common man is totally in jeopardy. If this situation is allowed to continue the implementation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act will become frustrated. Therefore I am constrained to direct the State Government, Union of India and Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay to take immediate steps to defend and vacate the order passed by the Court in the suit No. 7491/71 pending before the Bombay City Civil Court within one month from the date of receipt of this order and report this Court about the action they have taken in that direction. I also direct the City Civil Court, Bombay to try and dispose of the suit No. 7491/71 within six months from today and report the matter to the High Court. For reporting the matter by the aforesaid authorities, the matter be called before the Court on 16-10-1998. Copy of the order be sent to the City Civil Court, Bombay forthwith, for necessary compliance. Writ petition allowed. -----