JUDGEMENT Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. The members of the second party in a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC pending before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Sheikhpura, being Case No. 678 (M) of 2008, have filed this application for quashing of the order dated 25.12.2008, passed therein by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sheikhpura, whereby he has initiated a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC and passed prohibitory orders, prohibiting both parties from going over the lands which have been specified in the said order. A further prayer has also been made for quashing of the notice issued in pursuance thereof. 2. According to the petitioners, a license had been issued by the Gram Panchayat Shamas Khurd, in favour of Sanjeet Kumar of village Babhan Bigha for running a cattle haat bearing Registration No. 1 of 2008 in respect of Plot Nos. 135, 137, 83, 92, 98, 101, 81, 84 and 85 under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Having obtained the said license puja had been performed by the license holder and there after weekly cattle haat used to be run thereupon peacefully. Annoyed thereby the political rival of the father of the licensee one Sunil Prasad Singh of village Rampur Sindaya at the instance of the Prakhand Pramukh and Vice Chairman of Nayar Panchayat, Barbigha, gave an application to the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura, requesting for prohibiting the licensee from running the cattle haat. It is said that on receipt of the application, the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura, called for a report from the Officer Incharge, Barbigha and the Officer Incharge allegedly having come into collusion with the local politicians, namely, the Prakhand Pramukh and Vice Chairman of Barbigha Nagar Panchayat instead of submitting a report to the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura, submitted the same to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheikhpura, recommending the initiation of a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC in respect of the haat of Babhan Bigha only and on receiving the report dated 25.12.2008, the learned Magistrate initiated the proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC on the same day prohibiting the parties from going over the lands as mentioned in the order and notices were, accordingly, issued to both the parties on the same day. 3. 3. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that it would be apparent from the police report as also the application filed by O.P. No. 2 herein, that the O.P.No. 2 had no concern whatsoever with the lands in question or with the petitioners village and that O.P. No. 2 himself claims to be a licensee for running a cattle haat on the basis of a license granted by Nagar Panchayat, Barbigha at village Rampur Sandiya and that he being a competitor in business of Sanjeet Kumar, the grand son of petitioner No. 1 and brother of petitioner No. 2, gave a frivolous application with the sole purpose of disturbing and harassing the petitioners in connivance with the local politicians and the police. It has also been submitted that a weekly cattle haat used to be run near Barbigha hatia from some 50 years ago on the basis of a license granted by Marketing Board, Barbigha, to petitioner No. 1 and no claim or obstruction was ever raised either by the administration or by the police and after abolishing the Market Board a fresh license has been granted in favour of the grand son of the petitioner No.1 by the Gram Panchayat and there has been no complaint at all by the public or the panchayat or the locality over running of the haat by Sanjeet Kumar. 4. Grievance has also been raised by the petitioners in respect of the haste shown by the police in submitting the report, the initiation of the proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC as also the issuance of notice inasmuch as all these actions took place on the same day in hot haste which only leads one to form a presumptive opinion that things had been maneuvered. The learned counsel sought to criticize the action of the police inasmuch as whereas the report was sought for by the District Magistrate it was sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate instead of sending it to the District Magistrate. The learned counsel sought to criticize the action of the police inasmuch as whereas the report was sought for by the District Magistrate it was sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate instead of sending it to the District Magistrate. It was finally submitted that the lands in question have been taken on lease by Sanjeet Kumar and a huge amount had been spent for the same as also for the payment of requisite fees to the panchayat and the period of lease was for one year only and it was in order to make the license infructuous, that O.P. No. 2 had filed an application before the District Magistrate and orders had been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the basis of a false report submitted by the police. 5. Admittedly, the proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC has been initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on being satisfied from the police report that there was an apprehension of breach of peace in the area in respect of dispute between the two parties over the lands in question and notices were, accordingly, issued to both the parties. 6. Section 144, Cr PC confers very wide power on the Magistrate to pass orders on emergency occasions which may have the effect of interfering with the exercise of the private rights of individuals. It would thus follow that it is intended for use only in cases of grave emergency where immediate prevention or speedy remedy is essential in the interest of the public and that too when the Magistrate is satisfied that the use of any other power would not be effective. Such power in a given situation can be exercised temporarily to override private rights and restrain individuals from doing perfectly lawful acts such as in a conflict between public interest and private rights. It is idle to contend that in an emergency where there is apprehension of a serious disturbance of the public tranquillity, the Magistrate is required to deliberate and decide the rights of the parties before acting. 7. In the instant case, the petitioners claim possession over the lands by virtue of a license issued by the Gram Panchayat. Whether the Gram Panchayat under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act is competent to grant license for holding cattle haat is not the question in issue. 7. In the instant case, the petitioners claim possession over the lands by virtue of a license issued by the Gram Panchayat. Whether the Gram Panchayat under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act is competent to grant license for holding cattle haat is not the question in issue. What is largely to be seen in a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC whether there is satisfaction of the Magistrate that there is an imminent apprehension of breach of peace and whether immediate prohibitory orders are required to be passed. 8. From the impugned order, it is apparent that the Magistrate was fully satisfied that there was an imminent apprehension of breach of peace which necessitated passing of prohibitory orders so as to curb the emergent situation. 9. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, I find no illegality in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. 10. In the result, there being no merit in this application, the same is dismissed.