JUDGMENT :

Ajai Lamba, J.

1. The Court proceedings have been conducted through Video-Conference.

2. This writ petition has been filed to seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 20.07.2020 whereby direction was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the dead cow was disposed of without informing the trial Court.

The petition also seeks quashing of order dated 31.7.2020 whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him for not complying with order dated 28.07.2020 issued in connection to giving zimma of four seized vehicles in connection with Gingia PS case No. 92/2020.

For the reasons given below the controversy raised by passing of the impugned orders; or the issues that arise on account of judicial adjudication in passing of the impugned orders are not required to be referred to.

3. I have taken judicial notice of the fact that the petition has been field by one Sri Rahendra Baglari, ASI, Gingia Police Station.

The respondents in the petition are:-

(1) Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Biswanath Chariali, who passed the orders impugned by virtue of this petition;

(2) Gauhati High Court through Registrar General;

(3) Registrar General of Gauhati High Court; and

(4) Sri Amarendra Hazarika who at the point in time when the impugned order was issued, was posted as Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) in Biswanath Chariali, district Biswanath Chariali.

It is therefore, apparent that the writ petition is directed against a Judicial Magistrate who passed orders in his judicial capacity. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has not only been impleaded by designation, but also by name so as to impute personal action.

Likewise, the Gauhati High Court and Registrar General have been impleaded as parties.

4. I fail to understand the purpose of impleading the Gauhati High Court or the Registrar General as respondents in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner also has not been able to justify impleading the High Court or the Registrar General.

5. So far as Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate is concerned, it is apparent that he passed the judicial orders while dealing with a judicial matter arising out of Gingia PS Case No. 92/2020.

6. At the outset, I would like to refer to paragraphs 9 and 10 of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anowar Hussain vs. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee and others, AIR 1965 SC 1651 in context of provisions of Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850. The said paragraphs 9 and 10 read as under:

"XXXXXXXXXXXX

9. In this appeal, the only question raised is that in ordering the arrest of the respondent the appellant acted in discharge of his judicial duties, and he was on that account protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850. Section 1 of the Act, in so far as it is material, provided:

"No Judge, Magistrate, xxx Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court for any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether or not within the limits of his jurisdiction: Provided that he at the time, in good faith, believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or order the act complained of; xxxx".

10. The statute is clearly intended to grant protection to Judicial Officers against suits in respect of acts done or ordered to be done by them in discharge of their duties as such officers. The statute it must be noticed, protects a Judicial Officer only when he is acting in his judicial capacity and not in any other capacity. But within the limits of its operation it grants large protection to Judges and Magistrates acting in the discharge of their judicial duties. If the act done or ordered to be done in the discharge of judicial duties is within his jurisdiction, the protection is absolute and no enquiry will be entertained whether the act done or ordered was erroneously, irregularly or even illegally, or was done or ordered wi