@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. This application is thoroughly n conceived. The petitioner himself filed application before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Ongole, for an order u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, basing it on a alleged right in him to perform a certain festival. The Magistrate considered that the petitioner had not shown any bona fide right on his part and therefore rejected his application. After he had disposed of that application, he directed a copy of his order to be sent to the Circle Inspector of Police who was requests to institute proceedings u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner, if he intended to exorcise the right which was claimed by him.
2. We do not understand how we can interfere at this stage under Article 226 of the Constitution. If and when proceedings u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are instituted against the petitioner, he will have the right to defend himself, and if, as the learned counsel for the petitioner says, he has clear authority for the position that Section 107 would not be applicable to the case, then he might be successful in the proceedings. We certain (SIC) cannot be called upon to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution simply on an executive direction by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate to the police to take a particular action u/s 107, Criminal Procedure Code. The order of the Magistrate does not certainly purport to decide finally the right of the petitioner. That will be a matter to be ultimately decided by a civil court. The application is dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee is Rs. 50/- (fifty)
