IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.522 of 2011 SUNIL KUMAR RAI @ SUNIL KUMAR SON OF PRABHUNATH RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – KOREYAN, P.S. BHORE, DISTRICT - GOPALGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT – GOPALGANJ 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ ----------- For the petitioner - Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate For the State - Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate, AC to AAG - I ------------- 03. 11.05.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks and is permitted to make necessary correction in Paragraphs -1 (1) and in Paragraph – 14 of the writ petition in course of the day. It is submitted that inadvertently the date “16th of May 2011” has been mentioned in place of “20th of May 2011”. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner through this writ application challenges the order vide memo No. 442 dated 2nd of May 2011, whereby the order passed against the petitioner in terms of Sub Section 3 of section 3 of the Bihar Crime Control Act 1981 directing the petitioner to remove himself from the district of Gopalganj from 6th of May 2011 to 20th of May 2011. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before passing the impugned order though the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing but a show cause notice was issued to him. Petitioner also replied to the notice. However, the fact that the petitioner is not an anti-social elements have not been considered and as such, the order suffers from serious illegality and it is accordingly submitted that the order deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Gopalganj in public interest in the nature of preventive order to prevent the disruption in the ensuing Panchayat Election in background of the fact that there were apprehension of his involvement in the criminal activity during election. It has also been submitted that from the impugned order, it would appear that the orders have been passed after considering the entire materials on the record and after due consideration the District Magistrate was satisfied that the petitioner is man of criminal antecedents and his presence during the period of Panchayat Election may disturb the election of public interest. It is further submitted that notwithstanding the above, petitioner has approached this court in its writ jurisdiction without exhausting the forum of appeal, as provided under section 6 of the aforesaid Act. The issue which the petitioner has raised through this writ application is the matter of record which could be gone into by the appellate authority, if so required. In this view of the matter, this writ is not an appropriate proceeding for adjudicating the claims of the petitioner through this writ application. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, the District Magistrate, Gaopalganj has passed the order on considering the materials on record indicating the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and his bona fide apprehension that presence of the petitioner may interfere with the peaceful Panchayat Election and as such, passed the order in public interest directing the petitioner to remove himself between the period in question as mentioned in the impugned order. This being the position, I do not find any merit in this writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed. Jagdish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)