Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The order dated 7-11-1994 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Arrah, in Misc. Case No. 112 of 1994 as contained in Annexure-1 and the order dated 4-5-1995 of the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Arrah, in Cr. Revision No. 214 of 1994 have been sought to be quashed in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Respondent No. 4 Rajeshwar Pd. filed a petition on 19-10-1994 before the S.D.O., Arrah, to pass necessary orders for getting the shop unlocked. According to the petitioner, the shop belongs to him as a tenant under the Trust property although the petitioner was not given any chance to state his case before the S.D.O. or the Executive Magistrate. The private-respondents case is that his shop had been locked by the petitioner and it had created law and order problem and as such it should be unlocked to give the respondent No. 4 all facilities to run the business in the shop. The S.D.O. asked for a report from the police. Then the matter was placed before the Executive Magistrate on 28-10-1984. As the matter was within the seisin of S.D.O., the Executive Magistrate asked for placing the file before the S.D.O. But on 7-11-1994. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Executive Magistrate, on the basis of the police report asked for reopening of the lock. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the tenant of the shop in question and the same cannot be made over to a private party without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in a legal proceeding. There is no scope of the S.D.O. or any Executive Magistrate to pass any order in a disputed matter without going on for an inquiry under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against the order passed in unlawfully and it was unlocked ultimately by the police, a revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge and by a long order learned Sessions Judge came to the finding that the revision was not maintainable as the order passed by the Executive Magistrate is not under any provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. On the face of the order passed by the Executive Magistrate and entertaining of the petition by respondent No. 4 seems to be an illegal one. 3. On the face of the order passed by the Executive Magistrate and entertaining of the petition by respondent No. 4 seems to be an illegal one. An Executive Magistrate has got authority in such dispute to enter between the two private parties, if a proceeding is registered under Chapter-X of the Code of Criminal Procedure but no proceeding was drawn up and it appears that the Executive Magistrate entered into the dispute between the parties when he had got no authority to do so. Either in the Civil Court or in the Criminal Court had only such jurisdiction but the Executive Magistrate had taken law in his own hand. Moreover, no liberty was given to the petitioner to be heard when there was allegation that the petitioner had locked the shop as is revealed from the report of the police officer. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for on behalf of the respondent No. 4 that the action taken by the Executive Magistrate or the S.D.O. was within their jurisdiction as an Executive Officer. According to him, if any illegality is done by a private individual on the face of it, the same can be removed by the Executive Magistrate under its executive power. He has referred to 1993 (SC) 853, The Ramjas Foundation and Ors. V/s. Union of India and Ors. and 1993(2) PLJR 618 Pramod Kr. and Ors. V/s. Bihar University and Ors. Nandan Singh and Ors. V/s.State of Bihar and Ors. submitted that if an illegality or high-handedness is found by the Executive Authorities to have been committed on their face then such illegality case cannot be made by not to take (sic) action but they can take action under the executive powers. I am not at all convinced with such submissions and those judgments were of totally on different context. Here, an order has been passed by the executive authority without following any procedure or without going through any norms. A private individual may come with a grievance, if the grievance could be entertained within the provisions of Chapter-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure then the Executive Magistrate can proceed according to law by giving notice to the other parties. But, there cannot be any action by the executive authority by taking law into their own hands. Such sort of action is definitely against all norms. But, there cannot be any action by the executive authority by taking law into their own hands. Such sort of action is definitely against all norms. Another attempt has been made by the learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of private respondent to the effect that the petitioner is not coming with clean hands before this Court as he was not stating the proper facts regarding his right over the property. Be it what it may, the petitioner might have suppressed or concealed his right over the property but that right is not to be decided either by this Court or by the executing authority. Such right can only be decided in proper forum. In that way, the whole of the order passed by the executive authority as contained in Annexure-1 is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to the S.D.O. to do the needful within the four corners of the law. It is made clear that he should not enter into the rights of the parties unless the same comes within the purview of Chapter-X of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order of unlawful unlocking passed by the S.D.O. is hereby withdrawn. As already there is an order of status quo, I am not going to pass any further order in the matter. The S.D.O. shall do the needful in this context also.