ORDER : This Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against order, dated 02.07.2019, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, in Case No. 80-IV/2018, titled as Renu Chauhan vs. Hardyal Singh, vide which, a complaint filed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the present petitioner stands dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are as under:- Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent was a tenant of the petitioner and was carrying out welding work in the premises so let out to him and she as a landlady had received complaints from other tenants regarding obnoxious, injurious, annoying and toxic welding fuels being generated by the accused from welding in his shop. As per the complainant, the conduct of the trade/occupation of the respondent was injurious to the health and comfort of the persons residing in the building as well as neighbourhood and accordingly, a prayer was made to initiate appropriate action under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The proceedings were resisted by the respondents, inter alia on the ground that the complaint besides being not maintainable, stood filed just to harass him, for the reason that he had demanded money from the complainant for certain works which he had carried out upon the property of the complainant, for which he was not reimbursed. As per the respondent, contradictory and false pleas stood raised against him and the allegation that the trade being carried by the respondent was causing inconvenience to the residents of the building or neighbourhood, were totally incorrect. This complaint stands dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Theog, by way of impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record of the case as well the impugned order. 5. As the order impugned is a short order, for the sake of convenience, the same is being reproduced as under:- “2.7.2019 Case called. Present : Complainant alongwith Advocate Sh. Somendar Chandel. None for respondent. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record of the case as well the impugned order. 5. As the order impugned is a short order, for the sake of convenience, the same is being reproduced as under:- “2.7.2019 Case called. Present : Complainant alongwith Advocate Sh. Somendar Chandel. None for respondent. From the perusal of the record placed on file and argument put forth by the learned Counsel for complainant it appear for me that there is no nuisance due to welding work this also observed from the record that there is a dispute between the parties for dispossessing the respondent from the shop which was rented out to the respondent by the complainant. Hence the present application does not fall under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no need to proceed further in the case. Hence the present application is dismissed. The original case file be consigned to the G.R.R. after due completion. Announced. Sd/- SDM.” 6. Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers upon a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, the power to make a conditional order for removal of nuisance on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence, as he thinks fit. 7. The power so conferred upon the authority is quasi judicial in nature. Not only this, the same also has penal consequences. In this background, it is but obvious, that whenever authority exercises the powers so conferred upon it under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedure prescribed has to be followed along with the principles of natural justice. 8. Record demonstrates that in order to prove her case, the complainant produced as many as seven witnesses, including three expert witnesses, whereas, no witness was produced by the respondent. The order which has been passed on the complaint by the SDM has already been reproduced hereinabove. Perusal thereof demonstrates that the complaint of the petitioner has been decided by the competent authority without passing a reasoned or speaking order. Neither the contentions of the respective parties have been taken note of nor the statements of the witnesses have been discussed. The findings arrived at by the authority are not substantiated by any reasoning. Perusal thereof demonstrates that the complaint of the petitioner has been decided by the competent authority without passing a reasoned or speaking order. Neither the contentions of the respective parties have been taken note of nor the statements of the witnesses have been discussed. The findings arrived at by the authority are not substantiated by any reasoning. This demonstrates that the impugned order is not a speaking order and has been passed without any due application of judicial mind. It is settled law that an order which has civil consequences has to be a speaking and reasoned order, so that the conclusion arrived at by the authority concerned can be made out from the contents of the order itself. The rationale behind this is that in case there is an aggrieved party and it intends to challenge the order, then it can infer from the said reasoning that on what grounds it may challenge the order and similarly, if after perusal of the reasons, the party is satisfied that the conclusion arrived at, is a just conclusion, it may refrain from indulging in any further litigation. The impugned order falls in the category of non-speaking order from which it cannot be inferred as to on what basis, the conclusion arrived at by the authority has been so arrived at. Simply by saying that record demonstrates that there is a dispute between the parties for dispossessing the respondent from the shop does not gives a licence to the authority to dismiss the complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant by passing a non speaking order. The authority is duty bound to pass a reasoned and speaking order which besides containing the respective stands of the parties, also necessarily has to contain the reasons which lead the authority to the conclusion that may be arrived at by the authority in the matter. 9. Accordingly, in view of the reasons assigned hereinabove, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside, on the ground that the same is a non speaking and unreasoned order by remanding the matter back to the authority concerned with the direction to decide the same afresh, after hearing the parties by passing reasoned and a speaking order. It is clarified that the order shall be passed by the authority on the basis of the material already on record. It is clarified that the order shall be passed by the authority on the basis of the material already on record. It is further clarified that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case. What conclusion has to be arrived at by the authority is the prerogative of the authority, but all that this Court observes is that the same be arrived at by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Parties are directed to appear before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Theog on 20.12.2021, whereafter appropriate date shall be fixed by the authority for final hearing of the case. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.