JUDGMENT J.A. Patil, J.

1. The original applicants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10 have filed this Revision Application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code and challenged the order dated 28-4-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, in Criminal Revision Application No. 17 of 1989, setting aside the order dated 7-2-1989 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (for short S.D.M.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 86 of 1987. The relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of this revision application may be stated, in brief, as under :

The original non-applicant M/s Ramchand Bhagirath is a proprietary concern of Bhagirath Ramchand Agrawal (since deceased). He was a commission agent in a Kirana goods and was also a wholesale dealer in dry chillies. In Ansari Ward of Gondia city, he had a godown in a double storeyed building known as Vishnu Kunj where he used to store large quantity of chillies. The applicants are residents of Ansari Ward, which is mainly residential locality. Non-applicant No. 2 being a wholesale dealer in dry chillies, everyday trucks loaded with dry chillies come to his godown and then the same are unloaded and stored in the godown. Similarly, loading of dry chillies also goes on for distributing the same to the customers of non-applicant No. 2. This has been going on since several years and it appears to have become a routine thing. The applicants have, however, a grievance that on account of storing of dry chillies in the godown as well as the work of loading and unloading thereof. It has been affecting the health and physical comfort of the residents in that locality and it has now become practically impossible for them to bear any further. According to them, the loading and unloading of chillies cause pollution with the result that many residents in the locality suffer from sneezing, coughing, asthma, irritation of skin and burning sensation. It appears that the applicants, therefore, moved the Municipal Council for taking necessary action in this behalf. However, since the Municipal Council did not give any response, the applicants moved the S.D.M., Gondia, under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned S.D.M., after finding that there was a prima facie case against the non-applicant, issued a conditional order dated 12-3-1985 under Section 133(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code with a notice to the non-applicant to show cause as to why the same should not be confirmed and made absolute. Pursuant to the said notice, the non-applicant appeared before the S.D.M., Gondia, and filed his reply. In the said reply, it was admitted that the building "Vishnu Kunj" is being used as godown but it is denied that the loading and unloading of dry chillies pollutes the atmosphere and causes physical injury or discomfort to the residents of the locality. The non-applicant pointed out that the godown is a pakka construction and that whenever loading and unloading is required to be done, water is sprinkled to avoid pollution. The non-applicant also pointed out that this has been going on for about 20 years and that nobody ever made any complaint in that behalf.

It appears that the S.D.M. Gondia, allowed the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. He recorded part of the evidence and it appears that thereafter the case was transferred to the S.D.M. Sakoli, who completed the enquiry. The S.D.M. Sakoli, upon consideration of the evidence of the witnesses came to the following conclusions viz.;

(i) People in general in the locality in sufficient number are suffering from the loading and unloading of dry chillies and its storage in the godown;

(ii) It has resulted not only in their adverse health and discomfort but a few are permanently suffering in the sense that some of them are suffering from sickness and ailment;

(iii) Even the witnesses of the non-applicant admitted that due to this business, there is discomfort and injury to physical health.

2. In this view of the matter, the learned S.D.M. Sakoli, held that the applicants proved public nuisance and physical discomfort to them. Consequently, the learned S.D.M. Sakoli, proceeded to pass the following order, which reads:

"The non-applicant is hereby directed that he will not keep, store and transport chillies in the godown Vishnu Kunj as the same is injurious to the health and physical comfort of the community and he shall also remove all the goods stored therein. This order shall be given effect from 22nd February, 1989.

Notice in form No. 21 be issued to the non-applicant."

3. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the non-applicant preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 17 of 1989 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia. The learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to reassess the entire evidence adduced by both the parties and came to the conclusion that the learned S.D.M. committed error in holding that the business of the non-applicant causes public nuisance. He further held that the learned S.D.M. ignored the evidence adduced on behalf of the non-applicant and attached too much importance to the evidence of the applicants. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further held that the learned S.D.M. had arbitrarily used his discretion in favour of the original applicants and, therefore, it was a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision application filed by the original non-applicant and set aside the order passed by the learned S.D.M. It is this order which is sought to be set aside in this Criminal Revision Application.

4. It may be pointed out that initially, there were 10 applicants, out of whom, five withdrew their grievance. Hence, remaining applicants have filed this revision application impleading those applicants as respondents in this application.

5. Part B of Chapter X of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with public nuisance. Section 133 deals with conditional order for removal of nuisance and the relevant part thereof reads as under:

Section 133. Conditional order for removal of nuisance.--(1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers --

(a).....

(b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any goods or merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated;

(c) to (f) such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order--

(i) .....

(ii) to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or merchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in such manner as may be directed;

(iii) to (vi) .....

or, if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute.

(2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this section shall be called in question in any Civil Court.

Explanation--A "public place" includes also property belonging to the State, camping grounds and grounds left unoccupied for sanitary or recreative purposes."

6. There is no dispute of the fact that in the instant case, a conditional order contemplated by Section 133(1)(b) came to be passed on 12-3-1985 and that thereafter an opportunity was given to the non-applicant to show cause as to why the said conditional order should not be made absolute. The learned S.D.M. has passed the final order under Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which reads as under;

"Section 138. Procedure where he appears to show cause.--(1) If the person against whom an order under Section 133 is made appears and shows cause against the order, the Magistrate shall take evidence in the matter as in a summons case.

(2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that the order, either as originally made or subject to such modification as he considers necessary, is reasonable and proper, the order shall be made absolute without modification or, as the case may be, with such modification.

(3) If the Magistrate is not so satisfied, no further proceedings shall be taken in the case."

7. Shri Bhangde, learned advocate for respondents No. 2 (A) to 2(F) who are the legal heirs of deceased Bhagirath Ramchand, the original proprietor of non-applicant firm raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the S.D.M. Sakoli, is not competent to pass the order under Sections 133 and 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code since he was not specially empowered for that purpose. However, at the time of dictation of this order, Shri Bhangde conceded that he was not pressing this objection.

8. The main contention of Shri Mardikar, learned advocate for the applicants is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction and reassessed the entire evidence led before the learned S.D.M. as if he was deciding an appeal. Shri Mardikar, submitted that it was not permissible for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to reconsider the evidence within the limited scope of his revisional jurisdiction and arrive at a different conclusion on fact. The law in this respect is very well settled that a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction unless the said finding is patently erroneous or illegal or perverse. The perusal of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge makes it clear that he himself was fully aware of this legal position, however, even then he has entered into discussion on the merits of evidence by observing that in order to consider as to whether the learned S.D.M. has legally scrutinised the evidence, the entire evidence is required to be reassessed. He has further observed that this is necessary in order to consider whether the learned S.D.M. has committed any illegality or irregularity and whether his finding is perverse or otherwise. In para 28 of his order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has pointed out that there is no appeal against the impugned order and, therefore, it becomes necessary to reappraise the evidence. In para 30 of the judgment, the learned Judge has remarked that reconsideration of evidence is necessary as the matter involves mixed questions of law and fact. It is not possible to agree with the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. If the reasons given by him for reassessing the evidence in a revision application are accepted, then practically every revision application will be turned into an appeal. It appears that various decisions were cited before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to remind him of the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. He has referred to them but assigned his own reasons, which are stated above, for reassessment of the evidence. This was not permissible for him to do so.

9. Shri Mardikar, relied upon the following decisions to show that the Revisional jurisdiction of a Court is limited and that reappraisal of evidence without their being any illegality, irregularity or impropriety is not permissible. In Iqram and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 1988 (2) Crimes 414, Allahabad High Court held that even though there might be any error or illegality in the findings or order or proceedings of the subordinate Courts, the Sessions Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot reverse those findings unless he is satisfied that the failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

10. In Krishna K. Puthan and Ors. v. Krishna B. Jadav and Ors. reported in 1986 (3) Crimes 223, a learned Single Judge of this Court, while considering a revision application against an order of acquittal held that the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and reach findings different from the trial Judge in revision.

11. In Arunabehn T. Ramanuj v. Vasudev P. Nimavat, reported in 1993(1) Crimes 16, the Gujarat High Court has held that the revisional power is not to be exercised as appellate power and the finding of the trial Court cannot be interfered with unless it is found to be perverse. It is not necessary to multiply the authorities on this point since it is now well settled.

12. During the enquiry before the learned S. D.M., the applicants examined in all 13 witnesses whereas the original non-applicant examined as many as 15 witnesses. The learned S.D.M. has dealt with the evidence of each of the witnesses and given his reasons for accepting or rejecting the evidence. Most of the witnesses examined on behalf of the applicants are residents of the same locality and each of them has stated what kind of discomfort or injury is suffered on account of the work of loading or unloading of dry chillies at the godown of the non-applicant. A.W.1 - Shabhir, who is original applicant No. 8 stated that due to the loading and unloading of chillies, he is suffering a great discomfort so much so that he is required to send his mother to other place as she becomes sick due to pollution in the atmosphere. Shabhir himself suffers from sneezing, cough and irritation of skin. A.W. 5 Mohd. Iqbal, who is original applicant No. 2 and he has his shop near the godown. He also stated that he suffers from irritation of skin as well as cough. A.W.8 is Vijaykumar Wadera, who is original applicant No. 1. He has his residential house in the vicinity and godown. He also stated that due to loading and unloading of chillies, he has been suffering from burning sensation in his nose as well as irritation in his eyes. It appears that he has taken treatment from Dr. Bhutada, who was also examined as A.W. 3 to corroborate his version that such troubles are caused by chilly powder, dust and polluted atmosphere. In addition, the applicants also examined some independent witnesses from the same locality. They are A.W. 4 - Vithoba Lilhare, who runs a printing press near the godown. He stated that due to loading and unloading of dry chillies at the non-applicant's godown, gas and powder dust emanate, causing sneezing, coughing and irritation of skin. The other witnesses are A.W. 6 - Ramdeo Verma, A.W. 11 Sheikh Nabi, A.W. 12 - Sharifuddin, A.W. 13 - Sk. Salim, A.W. 9 - Yeshwant Naniwadekar, A.W. 10 - Mayur Bhatiya. A.W. 9 - Yeshwant Naniwadekar is the Branch Manager of State Bank of India which is situated at a short distance from Vishnu Kunj and he stated before the learned S.D.M. that he suffers from loading and unloading of dry chillies. A.W. 10 - is Mayur Bhatiya, who is a social worker and who carries on sports activities on a nearby ground. He too stated about the discomfort caused by loading and unloading of dry chillies. It appears that subsequently these two witnesses were won over by the non-applicant, who obtained certificates from them to the effect that they did not suffer due to loading and unloading of dry chillies. The learned S.D.M. has, however, pointed out that how these two witnesses have been won over by the non-applicant and that the said act of the non-applicant amounts to tampering with the witnesses. Among the witnesses examined on behalf of the non-applicant are two doctors viz., Mukund Bhide and Dr. Ashok Katke. In the cross-examination. Dr. Bhide stated that the suffering of Vijaykumar Wadera - applicant No. 1 were not possible as a result of the dust of chilly powder but he admitted that chilly powder causes allergy. He further admitted that if a large number of chilly bags are transported, loaded and unloaded, people in the vicinity are bound to suffer from coughing, sneezing and discomfort. Dr. Bhide was confronted with a passage from the Medical jurisprudence by Dr. Modi at page 606 which recites that large dose of capsicum acts as an irritant poison and cause difficulty of swallowing, pain in the stomach and inflammation of esophagus and stomach. Locally applied, it produces irritation of the skin. He agreed with this observation. Similarly, other witnesses Dr. Ashok Katke also admitted in his cross-examination that if there are a large number of particles in the atmosphere they cause allergy, sickness, chronic irritation in the throat and respiratory organs. He further admitted that due to loading and unloading of chillies, fumes and gas and particles spread in the atmosphere and people in the vicinity are bound to suffer. The learned S.D.M. thus summarized the evidence of the applicants witnesses and pointed out that the same is substantiated even by the doctors examined on behalf of the non-applicant.

13. The non-applicant - Ramchand Bhagirath did not step in the witness box but he examined several other witnesses. It is material to note that they are not residents of the same locality i.e. Ansari Ward and some of them carry business of dealing in dry chillies. The learned S.D.M., therefore, did not think it proper to place reliance upon their evidence. It is pertinent to note that in para 44 of his judgment, the learned additional Sessions Judge has remarked that non-applicant ought not to have examined the said witnesses as they have no concern with the locality in which the godown is situated. He further observed that the learned S.D.M. has rightly rejected their evidence. Even after holding so, it is curious to note that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed in para 61 of his judgment "after reading whole judgment, it reveals that the learned S.D.M. has given much weight to the evidence of the respondents and discarded the evidence of revisionists without assigning legal reasons....." It is needless to point out how the learned Additional Sessions Judge has contradicted his own conclusion drawn in para 44 of the judgment. It will thus be seen that the learned S.D.M. carefully examined the evidence of all the witnesses. From the reasons given by him for accepting the evidence of the applicants witnesses, it was quite reasonable for him to arrive at a conclusion that the business of loading and unloading of dry chillies carried by the non-applicant caused nuisance to the residents in the locality. He was right in observing that dry chillies being brittle articles can certainly break and particles spread in the atmosphere. He has also observed that very nature of the business is such that it emanates fumes, gas and chilly powder dust in the atmosphere and pollutes the same. It cannot be said that in the light of positive evidence adduced by the applicants, the said conclusions drawn by the learned S.D.M. are in any way unreasonable, perverse or illegal. It is strange to note that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who complemented the learned S.D.M. for rejecting the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the non-applicant, has himself accepted and relied upon the same. This is not only illegal but perverse also. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the process of trying to find out faults with the well reasoned order passed by the learned S.D.M., has undertaken the unwarranted exercise of reappraising the evidence, forgetting his limits of power and acting in a total arbitrary manner in the process of so called examination as to whether learned S.D.M. has rightly used his discretion or not. It must, therefore, be said to the discredit of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that it is he and not learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who has acted arbitrarily, in view of this position, Shri Mardikar, is quite right in submitting that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has gravely erred in setting aside the order passed by the learned S.D.M.

14. Shri Bhangde, learned advocate for the original non-applicant pointed out that the business of loading and unloading of dry chillies is being carried out since 1966 and that nobody has ever complained of any pollution or physical discomfort. He also highlighted the fact that water is sprinkled before the loading and unloading of chilly bags is done. The learned S.D.M. has pointed out that this statement appearing in the non-applicant's reply gives a sufficient indication of pollution of atmosphere and discomfort not only to coolies but also to the people in the vicinity, otherwise there is no need to sprinkle water. Moreover, it appears to be only a contention that water is sprinkled at the time of loading and unloading operations but the same is not substantiated by any oral evidence. The proprietor of the non-applicant firm did not step into the witness box to offer his precautionary measures which he claims to take before the loading and unloading operations are done.

15. As regards the long practice of loading and unloading dry chillies, Shri Bhangde referred to the decision in Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, , wherein it was held that the whole object of Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code is that the public should not suffer and that such dangers or obstructions caused by the members of the public should be removed at the earliest possible moment. It was further held that the proceeding under Section 133 of Criminal Procedure Code is not to be taken in a case where there has been a long user and it is not intended that the proceeding under that section should be substituted for a civil suit in a Civil Court.

16. In an earlier decision, in Maksood Ali v. Union Board, Garhwa, reported in AIR 1939 Patna 183, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court observed that no length of enjoyment can legalize a public nuisance involving actual danger to the health of the community. Therefore, merely because the applicants and other residents of Ansari Ward suffered the pollution and discomfort caused by the loading and unloading of dry chillies for quite some period, it does not mean that they cannot complain about it. There is a limit to sufferance and tolerance and when the things become intolerable, the persons who are put to discomfort have no other option but to complain about the nuisance. They cannot be told that they should continue to suffer the same since they did not earlier complained about it.

17. Shri Bhangde also emphasized that the act of loading and unloading of dry chillies does not cause imminent danger. He referred to a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Murlidhar v. Onkar, , wherein it was held that an order under Section 133 can be justified only if the conduct of the trade is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community. The conduct of the trade must be injurious in presenti. A distant possibility of an injury to the health or physical comfort of the community would not justify an order under this section. It was further observed that there must be at any rate an imminent danger to the health or the physical comfort of the community in the locality in which the trade or the occupation is conducted. I do not see how this decision helps Shri Bhangde in his submission. The danger and discomfort caused by the loading and unloading of dry chillies by the non-applicant is not a distant possibility but a present reality which is being experienced by the residents in the locality.

18. Shri Bhangde further pointed out that the applicants have already filed R.C.S. No. 88 of 1985 for perpetual injunction against the non-applicant. The trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the applicants but in appeal, the District Court vacated the same. The non-applicant has filed C.R.A. in this Court and the same is pending.

19. Shri Mardikar, submitted that resort to the remedy under the Civil law does not debar the applicants from prosecuting the remedy available under the Criminal law i.e. Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Relying upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Babulal v. Dr. Yadav, reported in 7994 Mh.L.J. 256, Shri Mardikar submitted that remedies under civil and criminal law being concurrent, pursuit of one would not necessarily bar the other. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P., reported in 1994 Cri.LJ. 289, wherein the Allahabad High Court held that proceeding under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code would still be competent even though a civil suit about the same matter may be pending.

20. Ganesh Pd. Sarawgi v. State of Bihar, reported in 1997 Cri.LJ. 928, was a case of public nuisance where a factory run by the petitioner was discharging affluents detrimental to the health of the general public. It was held that in spite of pollution laws being available in such matter, proceeding under Section 133 of Criminal Procedure Code for avoiding immediate danger and removal of public nuisance were maintainable.

21. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manji Raghu, reported in 1964 (2) Cri.LJ. 94, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that availability of other remedy under the Municipal Act did not bar jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

22. It will thus be seen that the remedy provided by Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a separate remedy to avoid imminent danger of public nuisance and discomfort. It is a speedy remedy and the same is available to the aggrieved party who can also file a civil suit. Therefore, merely because the applicants have resorted to the remedy of filing an injunction suit and that they have failed to obtain an injunction, it does not mean that they are not entitled to get any relief under Section 133 read with Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

23. Shri Bhangde also laid emphasis to the fact that non-applicant had obtained a certificate of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, certifying that the business carried by it is non-hazardous. He made a grievance that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not consider this aspect. However, in my opinion such a certificate is not a complete answer to the actual nuisance and discomfort which is being suffered by the residents of the locality. In the case of Ganesh v. State of Bihar (supra), a factory was discharging polluted water and affluents which were flowing to a river and further from the factory poisonous gases were discharging through chimneys injurious to the public health and causing hardship to the community in general. The factory owner had obtained the consent order of the Bihar Pollution Board, which was in discharge of affluents. The High Court, however, rejected the contention raised on behalf of the owner of the factory by pointing out that the Pollution Acts contain preventive measures to prevent nuisance and pollution in the general interest of public but where there is immediate danger regarding the existing of public nuisance detrimental to the public health, the provisions of Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code are attracted.

24. Relying upon the decision in Ram Avtar v. State of U.P., , Shri Bhangde contended that slight discomfort which may caused to the residents of the locality on account of loading and unloading of dry chillies is not sufficient to warrant an order under Section 138 of the Criminal procedure Code. It may be noted that in the said case trade of auctioning of vegetables was carried on in a private house in a city and it caused some amount of inconvenience to the people passing by the public road outside the building because of the vegetables carts which were necessarily parked on the public road and also produced some discomfort to the people living in the locality because of the noise caused when auction was going on. It is true that in the case on hand, the storing of dry chillies is in a private house belonging to the non-applicant but the loading and unloading of the chilly bags which are brought in several trucks has to be carried on a public road. The grievance of the applicants in the instant case is not in respect of the inconvenience resulting from the parking of trucks bringing the bags of chillies but on account of pollution and discomfort caused by the chillies. Therefore, on facts, the case relied upon by Shri Bhangde is clearly distinguishable. What is important to note is that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate not prohibited the non-applicant from carrying on the business of dealing in chillies. The perusal of his order shows that non-applicant is prohibited from keeping or storing chillies in the godown as the same is proved to be injurious and physical discomfort of the community. It is, therefore, obvious that the non-applicant can store dry chillies elsewhere away from the residential locality and carry on his wholesale business of dealing in dry chillies as before.

25. Shri Bhangde also referred to the decision in Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar, , to submit that interference by this Court would result in restoration of the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate which, according to him, is an illegal order. However, as seen above, the said order is perfectly legal and valid and, therefore, it deserves to be restored.

26. Thus, taking into consideration the various aspects of this case, I am of the opinion that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was quite right in passing the conditional order under Section 133(1)(b) as well as final order under Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was absolutely not justified in interfering with the same. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge requires to be set aside and the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sakoli, requires to be restored.

27 In the result, the Criminal Application is allowed. The order dated 28-4-1994 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 17 of 1989 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, is hereby quashed and set aside and order dated 7-2-1989 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 86 of 1987 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sakoli, is hereby restored. The Revision Application is accordingly disposed of.

28. At this stage, Shri Bhangde, advocate for respondent/ non-applicant No. 2 prays for staying the operation of this order for a period of eight weeks on the ground that the non-applicant proposes to file S.L.P. before the Supreme Court. Shri Mardikar, advocate for the applicant has strong objection for granting this prayer. However, considering the facts and circumstances, of the case, I think that it is proper to stay the operation of this order to enable the non-applicant to approach the higher forum. Hence, this order is stayed for a period of eight weeks.