Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.

Petitioners challenge an order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing abatement of nuisance. The order was made on a complaint, that petitioners had obstructed free flow of water.

2. Relying on the decision of a learned single judge of this Court in Tata Tea Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1984 KLT 645), called the 'Tata Tea Case' hereinafter, petitioners submit that the impugned order is bad for want of jurisdiction. The Magistrate did not follow the procedure indicated in S.138 of the Code, and a local inspection was made contrary to the provisions of S.139 of the Code, state petitioners. According to them, M/s. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Sulochanan Nair, Thankappan, Latheef and others, who are not parties to the proceedings, had raised the level of their paddy fields, and this was responsible for waterlogging.

3. In Tata Tea case, the learned judge held that provisions of S.133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood repealed by implication, by the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, called 'the Pollution Act' hereinafter. The learned judge observed:

"The preamb