Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.945 of 2026 Manmohan Majhi & Ors. ..... Petitioner (s) Mr. Aparesh Bhoi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ….. Opposite Party (S) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER Order No. 16.04.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioners, by filing this CRLMC, have made a prayer to set aside the impugned notice issued by the Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Chandbali/Opposite Party No.3 in Crl. Misc. Case No.08 of 2006 under Annexure-1. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that though the impugned notice has been issued by the Tahasildar-cum- Executive Magistrate, Chandbali to the Petitioners, the basis on which such notice was issued has not been intimated to the Petitioners. The Relevant portion of the letter is extracted hereinbelow: - “Information has been received from IIC Bansada P.S that, you the delinquent is disturbing the public tranquility and creating Law and order situation in the Locality. The IIC Bansada P.S has prayed for in initiation of proceeding U/s 126 B.N.S.S. against you for keeping peace and tranquility in the locality. As such this proceeding has been Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Apr-2026 11:17:20 Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 3. registered and you are directed to appear in the Court of the undersigned in person on dt.11.03.2026 at 11 A.M. and file show cause as to why you should not be ordered to executive bond Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) with one local surety for the Like amount to keep peace in the locality for a period of minimum one year. The IIC Bansada P.S is directed to serve the Notice on the bellow named delinquent and returned the S.R on or before and incident be reported to the undersigned.” 4. He further submits that as per Section 130 of the BNS, the Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Chandbali is duty bound to state the basis on which the notice has been issued under Section 126 of the BNS. In the present case, the reasons have not been given. Hence, this violates Section 130 of the BNS. Moreover, the date has not been given in the said notice. It seems that the said Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Chandbali has not studied Section 130 of the BNS. 5. Hence, the said Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Chandbali is directed to study the purpose and intent of the Section 130 of the BNS and also learn the culture of putting date in the notice. 6. In such view of the matter, the notice issued by the Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Chandbali/Opposite Party No.3 in Crl. Misc. Case No.08 of 2006 under Annexure-1 is quashed. The Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Page 3 of 3. Chandbali/Opposite Party No.3 is directed to issue a fresh notice assigning all the reasons with date. 7. The CRLMC stands disposed of, accordingly. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali