The High Court's power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law and should be exercised most sparingly. When a specific alternative remedy is provided by the Code, relief under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be provided.

( 1 ) THE hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the order dated 23. 01. 2004 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive), Howrah in M. P. Case No. 2087 of 2003.

( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is that he being a co-owner in respect of the property as described in Schedule 'a' obtained a preliminary decree in partition Suit being T. S. No. 73 of 1990 in the Court of learned Assistant district Judge, now Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 2nd Court, Howrah where his 13/ 48th share was declared, and it is now pending for Partition Commissioner's proceeding and final decree. As the O. P. tried to raise a massive construction on the said property illegally which gave rise to a serious breach of public peace and O. P. No. 12-Developer, illegally completed a multi-storeyed building particularly on Plot No. 319 of Mouza Liluah, Howrah, he filed a m. P. Case being No. 2399 of 2003 where police is yet to submit report. In m. P. Case No. 2087 of 2003, O. C. , Liluah P. S. submitted a report on 16. 09. 2003 and after hearing on 21. 08. 2004 the learned Magistrate dropped the proceeding and rejected the Naraji petition of the petitioner against police report, on the sole ground that as Title Suit being No. 73 of 1990 is pending in a Civil Court between the parties on the self-same matter, two parallel proceedings cannot continue.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the dissatisfied with the said order, the present application has been filed.

( 4 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the learned magistrate was justified in passing the said order.

( 5 ) MR. Diptendu Majumder, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on referring to the impugned order contended that pendency of the partition suit between the parties, now awaiting final decree and the present proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. cannot in any way be said to be two parallel proceedings, as the scope and object of the proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. C. is quite different which is to protect the life and property in emergent situation, and as such the learned Magistrate was erred in law and fact in not passing an order restraining O. P. No. 12 in particular who happens to be the Developer from interfering with the petitioner's right over the property thereby preventing the breach of peace. Mr. D. Basu, learned counsel for O. P. No. 12, on the other hand, on drawing Court's attention to the application under Section 144 Cr. P. C. filed by his client contended that one Palatosh Fulki is the owner of the property and his client developed the property by constructing a multi-storeyed building thereon, which is admitted by the present petitioner in his application, long back in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Municipality, and accordingly there being no breach of peace, the learned Magistrate rightly passed the impugned order.

( 6 ) NOW, Section-144 empowers the Magistrate to give direction only in three cases specified viz. to prevent (i) obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or (ii) danger to human life, health or safety, and (iii) a disturbance of the public tranquility or a right or affray. The gist of action under Section 144 is the urgency of the situation its efficacy in the likelihood of being able to prevent some harmful occurrences. As it is possible to act absolutely and even ex parte, it is obvious that the emergency must be sudden and the consequences sufficiently grave. Without it the exercise of power would have no justification. In this connection, the decision in Madhu Limaye v. S. D. M. Munghyr, reported in air 1971 SC 2486 at 2496 may be referred to. As has frequently been held, it is only in exceptional circumstances where emergency of the gravest character is made out (e. g. danger to human life, imminent disturbance of public tranquility, or a riot or affray or an urgent case of nuisance or apprehended danger) that the Magistrate would be justified in making