JUDGMENT

W. Comer Petheram, C.J. - On the 9th of March 1894, Domi Lal, the complainant in this case, made a statement on affirmation, before the District Magistrate of Monghyr, in which he stated that the Baneli Raj people had closed a path or road by which jungle produce, wood, etc., were brought from the Sakaul and Gorega jungles to the railway and Singhia. That he had been sub-inspector of jungles for twelve or thirteen years, and had seen the road used each year, but this year it had been closed, as there were disputes between the Raj Baneli and Raj Durbangha. He also said that this year, when the road was being made, the Baneli people obstructed; that five persons, whose names he mentions, came with lathies, and said that they would not allow him to make the road; that they were ready to commit assault if necessary; and that when he had ascertained that, he came away. He added that the Sakaul and Gorega jungles entirely belong to Durbangha. Upon this the District Magistrate, on the same day, made an order, in which he recited that the matter had come to his notice before, as it had been mentioned to him by Mr. Ambler and Mr. Bell, and that as both parties were powerful he thought there was likely to be a collision if the matter were not settled. He then goes on to direct that a notice should be issued to Gobind Pershad, Tehsildar at Dharhara Cutcherry, and Bhattu Lal Patwari, calling on them to show cause why the carts of Durbangha should not be allowed to come out from the Sakaul and Gorega jungles towards the railway and Singhia through Khajuria Pazungunge, and that if they alleged that Durbangha carts had no right of way, they would adduce evidence on the point, and the petitioner would also adduce evidence; he also directed that the case should be made over to the Joint Magistrate. The next day the Joint Magistrate fixed the 26th instant, and directed that notice should issue according to the order, and that a copy of the complaint should go to the defendants. On the 23rd the District Magistrate transferred the case to the file of Moulvi Abdus Salam, a Deputy Magistrate of the first- class, and fixed the 9th of April for the enquiry. The enquiry was commenced on that day, the evidence was completed on the 14th, and on the 17th the Deputy Magistrate delivered judgment, by which he ordered u/s 147, Criminal Procedure Code, that the Durhangha Raj, represented by Domi Lal, do repair the tracks marked Al to Al, and that Durhangha and other carts should be allowed to pass along this cart track when made. This rule was afterwards obtained by Mr. Bonnerjee from a Division Bench of this Court, and it has now been argued before us by Mr. Bonnerjee for the Baneli Raj, and by Mr. Jackson for the Maharajah of Durbangha. Mr. Jackson has placed the evidence before us and has argued that the decision of the Deputy Magistrate is right on the merits, and that the provisions of the section have been sufficiently complied with, Mr. Bonnerjee has contended that the original order of the District Magistrate is bad, because it does not state the grounds upon which he was satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed', that even if it were not necessary for him to state such reasons under the provisions of Section 147, still he must be satisfied of the fact for some sufficient reason; and that the materials which was before him, and are now before us, were not such as he should have acted upon under the section : and, further, that if the materials for taking action were sufficient, the enquiry which was held was held without notice to the persons interested in the subject-matter of it, and whose rights are sought to be affected by its result; and that that being the case, there has been no enquiry at all within the meaning of the law, and that the order of the Deputy Magistrate must be set aside, as if rests on no legal enquiry or conclusion. Mr. Bonnerjee has also attacked the finding on the merits.

2. In my opinion