JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. - Heard Shri P.D. Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioners, who has put to challenge an order dated 26.12.2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Kameng District in exercise of power under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. and the entire process as a whole. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 company was allotted sub-contract to complete the balance portion of a work of construction and improvement of Seppa Chayantajo Road (81km.) vide work order dated 01.06.2018, which was allotted to the principal contractor, namely, Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Though subsequently, the part of the work was given to another sub-contractor, the petitioners had diligently performed the work allotted to them. It is the case of the petitioners that they are only answerable to the principal contractor, namely, Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in matters pertaining to the work. However, vide impugned order dated 26.12.2019, the Deputy Commissioner, East Kameng District directed the petitioner No.2 to execute a Bond under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C for Rs.50,000/- for a period of 4 months on alleged grounds that there is likelihood of disturbance of peace as well as law and order because of non-completion of work. A further direction was given to complete the work before 31.03.2020 and submit progress report every Friday to the concerned Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner No.2 was also directed not to leave Seppa Head quarter till 31.03.2020 without prior approval. 3. Shri Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been gross misuse and abuse of the powers under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that pre-condition of said Sections being apparently absent, the powers could not have been exercised by the respondent No.2. In any case, it has been contended that the exercise of power is arbitrary done in a most unreasonable manner which defies logic. 4. Referring section 107 of the Cr.P.C, it is submitted that one of the pre-requisite for exercising such power is receipt of information that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity. 4. Referring section 107 of the Cr.P.C, it is submitted that one of the pre-requisite for exercising such power is receipt of information that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity. In the instant case, no such information appears to be there and even assuming that the respondent No.2 was not satisfied with the progress achieved, the petitioner No.2 could not be held to be a person, who is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity. In any case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner No.1 is a sub-contractor and the contract in question is with Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 5. In this connection, Shri Nair, has also relied upon the case of Madhu Limay Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and others,1970 3 SSC 746. A seven judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment while discussing Section 107 Section of the Cr.P.C has laid down as under. "35. We have seen the provisions of Section 107. That section says that action is to be taken 'in the manner hereinafter provided' and this clearly indicates that it is not open to a Magistrate in such a case to depart from the procedure to any substantial extent. This is very salutary because the liberty of the person is involved and the law is rightly solicitous that this liberty should also be curtailed according to its own procedure and not according to the whim of the Magistrate concerned. It behoves us, therefore, to emphasise the safeguards built into the procedure because from there will arise the consideration of the reasonableness of the restrictions in the interest of public order or in the interest of the general public." 6. Though the decision of the said Section was prior to the present Code of 1973, the substantive part was almost similar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that it is not open to the Magistrate to depart from the procedure to any substantial extent by use of expression "in the manner hereinafter provided". 7. Shri Nair, accordingly submits that there is gross violation on the procedure as well as the intent sought to be achieved and accordingly, the impugned order is likely to be set aside and quashed. 8. Ms. 7. Shri Nair, accordingly submits that there is gross violation on the procedure as well as the intent sought to be achieved and accordingly, the impugned order is likely to be set aside and quashed. 8. Ms. T. Jini, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, A.P. fairly submits that reading of the impugned order dated 26.12.2019, does not bring one to a conclusion that the procedure prescribed in Section 107 of the Cr.P.C have been duly complied with. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to be strictly followed in accordance with the procedure of the particular section. She has also produced the records of the case. 9. The submissions made by the learned counsel have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court including the records have been carefully examined. This Court finds force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure laid down in Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. and the preconditions thereto have not been followed at all before exercising the power under the said Section culminating in issuance of the order dated 26.12.2019. Apart from the case referred of Madhu Limaye, the Hon'ble Privy council way back in 1936 in the case of Nazir Ahmed Vs. The King Emperor has laid down that if a procedure is prescribed to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the said thing has to be done in that manner alone and all other modes are necessarily forbidden. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted herein below: "The rule which applies is a different and not less well recognised rule namely, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This doctrine has often been applied to Courts". The said view has been consistently followed in all subsequent decisions in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts. 10. In the instant case, it is seen that there is no information given by any party against the petitioners that they are likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquillity. The said view has been consistently followed in all subsequent decisions in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts. 10. In the instant case, it is seen that there is no information given by any party against the petitioners that they are likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquillity. Secondly, the contractual relationship of the employer was only with M/s Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioners herein are only subcontractors, who are answerable only to the principal contractor. The conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Kameng District upon the petitioner No.2 including those requiring to take leave and also his action to cancel such leave ex facie appears to be arbitrary exercise of power. Instead of taking recourse to the remedy available in such situation, the Deputy Commissioner, East Kameng District has acted in a manner not recognised by law in the grab of exercising the power under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C which this Court does not endorse. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is left with no other option but to set aside the impugned order dated 26.12.2019 and the entire process leading to passing of the said impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. It is however, made clear that action may be taken but same has to be in strict conformity of the law and the procedure laid down. The records are handed back to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, A.P. 12. At this stage, Shri Nair, the learned counsel prays for release of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- which he was forced to be deposited as a part of signing of a Bond. The said amount is directed to be refunded to the petitioner No.2 forthwith, if not done earlier. The petition accordingly stands allowed.