JUDGMENT (Prayer; Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 27.05.2022 in Na.Ka.No.002/2022/A2 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore.) 1. This revision has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 27.05.2022 passed in Na.Ka.No.002/2022/A2 by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore. 2. On the complaint given by the respondents 3 to 7 by invoking Section 133 Cr.P.C before the first respondent-Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, has issued summons to the petitioner, for which, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 309 Cr.P.C before the first respondent and sought time for submitting his explanation. However, the first respondent instead of giving an opportunity to the petitioner and without passing an interim order, straightaway passed the final order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel instructed by Mr.M.Sundara Kadeeswaran, counsel on record for the petitioner submitted that in an earlier occasion, some third parties have filed a petition under Section 133 Cr.P.C before the first respondent on the ground that the petitioner had been causing public nuisance by keeping large number of dogs in his premises for commercial purpose. The first respondent-Sub Divisional Magistrate without following the mandatory provisions under Section 133 Cr.P.C has passed an order. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein has filed revision before this Court. This Court by an order dated 23.12.2009 dismissed the petition. Thereafter, the respondents therein have not filed any petition. Now, only, after ten years, the third respondent herein and four others have come with the very same allegations and filed yet another petition under Section 133 Cr.P.C before the first respondent. Even in the said complaint also, the first respondent without following the procedures under Section 133 Cr.P.C and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and without passing interim order, straightaway passed the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that before passing an order, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate ought to have find out whether there must be imminent danger to the property and consequential nuisance to the public and then give opportunity and pass conditional order and thereafter, after affording opportunities, he can pass the final order. 5. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that before passing an order, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate ought to have find out whether there must be imminent danger to the property and consequential nuisance to the public and then give opportunity and pass conditional order and thereafter, after affording opportunities, he can pass the final order. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd. and others reported in (2003) 7 SCC 389 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in P.Someshkandar vs.Vijayan reported in 2009(5) L.W.750 and the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in The Manager, Kodanad Estate, Kotliagiri Taluk, The Nilgiris District Vs. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Ors. reported in Manu/TN/2054/2008. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is rearing dogs only for domestic purpose and not for commercial. If it is found that there is an imminent danger and if a person founds that the petitioner is having cattle for breeding, if allowed to continue long period then he has to approach the Civil Court and the first respondent cannot pass such an order. The respondents have not taken any action for more than ten years. Therefore, the order of the first respondent has to be set aside. 7. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Mr.Gladys Daniel, counsel on record for the respondents 3 to 7 submitted that in the earlier occasion the neighbour of petitioner had filed a petition under Section 133 Cr.P.C before the first respondent on the ground that the petitioner had been causing public nuisance by keeping large number of dogs for commercial purpose. After enquiry, the first respondent-Sub Divisional Magistrate by an order directed the petitioner to remove all the dogs in his capacity and possession. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein filed revision before this Court. This Court by an order dated 23.12.2009 dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed S.L.A.(Crl.).No(s).9294 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on 23.12.2009. As per the order of this Court dated 23.12.2009, no dogs should be kept in the house of the petitioner. This Court by an order dated 23.12.2009 dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed S.L.A.(Crl.).No(s).9294 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on 23.12.2009. As per the order of this Court dated 23.12.2009, no dogs should be kept in the house of the petitioner. After ten years, during the COVID-19 pandemic situation, he has again brought more than 70 dogs and kept in his residence and causing nuisance to the public. Therefore, the respondents 3 to 7 herein approached the first respondent-Sub Divisional Magistrate filed a complaint stating that the petitioner has violated the earlier order of this Court and the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order. He further submitted that the petitioner has no right to keep the dogs by violating the order of this Court. There is no merit in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard the learned counsel on either and also perused the materials available on record. 9. Admittedly, the respondents 3 to 7 herein filed a complaint before the first respondent by invoking Section 133 Cr.P.C. After issuance of summons, the petitioner sought time for giving explanation, however, the first respondent without affording an opportunity passed the impugned order. 10. In the earlier occasion, the first respondent-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Coimbatore has passed the impugned order against the very same petitioner and the operative portion of the earlier impugned order reads as follows: ''a) That the order passed by me on 03.09.2009 under Section 133 Cr.P.C is made absolute without any modification. b) That the respondent shall not carry on the activity of keeping or holding any dogs in the premises situated at Door No.28, Circuit House Road, Coimbatore and he shall forthwith remove all the dogs in his capacity and possession, failing which it shall be enforced according to law''. 11. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that during the period of COVID-19 the petitioner has brought more than 70 dogs and kept the dogs in his premises, on a careful perusal of the records and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that as per the earlier order of this Court dated 23.12.2009 the petitioner has no right to keep large number of dogs in his premises without obtaining any valid licence. However, the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without giving an opportunity, the first respondent straightaway passed the impurged order. 12. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that the first respondent ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his defence before passing the order. 13. In such view, the impugned order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the first respondent/Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as respondents 3 to 7 and other necessary parties. The petitioner is directed to submit his explanation to the notice dated 05.05.2022 to the first respondent/Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Coimbatore on or before 26.09.2022. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate is directed complete all the proceedings and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on or before 27.10.2022. 14. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.05.2022 passed in Na.Ka.No.002/2022/A2 by the first respondent/Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore is hereby set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.