JAGDISH BHALLA, J.

(1) AT the out set we would like to mention that the aforesaid writ petition and the Review petition has been assigned to this Bench by the Honble the Chief Justice vide order dated 16. 8. 2002. In pursuance of the said order dated 16. 8. 2002 the aforesaid matters were listed before this Bench. Both the writ petition and the Review Petition were heard together by us and the same arc being decided by a common judgment.

(2) PETITIONER who was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi has filed the aforesaid Writ petition No. 1000 (SB) of 2001 challenging the order of suspension dated 18. 5. 2001, contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition on the ground that the order of suspension has not only been passed in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice, but while passing the impugned order of suspension, the opposite party has relied on the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5238 (MB) of 2000; M/s. Credit Agricoal Indosuez and Ors. v. M/s. S. A. F. Yiest Ltd. and Ors. , which in fact are the exparte orders. In addition to the quashing of suspension order, the petitioner has also sought the quashing of the report submitted by the district Judge dated 15. 1. 2001, contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

(3) SHORN of details, in brief the facts of the case are that the relevant time petitioner was posted as chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi. On 24. 7. 2000, S. A. F. Yiest Company Ltd, Sandila, district hardoi through its General Manager moved an application Under Section 156 (3) Crpc on which the petitioner passed an order directing the S. H. O. P. S. Sandila, to register the report and investigate. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being a Chief Judicial magistrate, Hardoi was fully competent to pass order for registering the case and for investigation and the petitioner has not committed any illegality in passing such order as it is the petitioner, who has made rules and had allotted police stations to the various other Judicial magistrates of the First Class. Further by allocating the work to the Magistrates, it cannot be said that he is legally incompetent to pass order on the application made Under Section 156 (3), Crpc. It has also been pointed out that after passing the aforesaid order, the case was transferred to the court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi, who was conferred with the jurisdiction for trial in respect of the cases pertaining to P. S. Sandila, district Hardoi.

(4) THE order dated 24. 7. 2000, passed by the petitioner was challenged by the Credit Agrocoal indosuez and others before Division Bench of this Court with the prayer to quash the first information report lodged in pursuance of the order dated 24. 7. 2000. A Division Bench of this court while passing the order dated 14. 12. 2000, observed that the manner in which proceedings of the case Under Section 156, Crpc took place raises some doubts and as such directed the district Judge, Hardoi to conduct a detailed enquiry in the matter and submit his report.

(5) IN pursuance of the above order, the District Judge conducted a thorough enquiry into the matter and submitted his report dated 15. 1. 2001. In this report, the District Judge has mentioned that from the comments submitted by the 1st Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and the distribution order it is clear that jurisdiction of P. S. Sandila was with the 1st Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. In the report he has mentioned that the date who which the petitioner passed the order on the application made by S. A. F. Yiest Company Ltd. , Sandila, the First Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate was present in the office and the petitioner was also not the link officer of the 1st addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. The District Judge, in his report has stated in unequivocal terms that he docs not agree with the contention of petitioner that he was competent to pass the order in view of Section 190 of th