IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.555 of 2011 1. SHEOJI SINGH @ SHEOJI THAKUR SON OF LATE JAGARNATH SINGH 2. SANJAY KUMAR @ SANJAY KUMAR SINGH SON OF SHEOJI SINGH @ SHEOJI THAKUR 3. ANIL MISHRA SON OF LATE GANGESHWAR MISHRA, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NETHUA, P.S. MARHAURA, DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA 4. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI BINDA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SALIMAPUR, P.S. MARHAURA, DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN AT CHAPRA, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SARAN AT CHAPRA, DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, MARHAURA, DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA 6. THE STATION HEAD OFFICER, MARHAURA, DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA ----------- 2 18.05.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. This application has been filed for quashing an order purported to have been passed under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Bihar Control of Crime Act, 1981, although no such order is brought on the record. It has been stated by the petitioners that they have come to know that an order of externment has been passed against them by the respondent-District Magistrate, Saran in exercise of the aforesaid provision of the Act. It is further submitted that the petitioners learnt the same from the news item published in the newspaper on 16th May, 2011. Petitioners thereupon made an attempt to file an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Divisional Commissioner who is the appellate authority under section 6 of the aforesaid Act, however, on being informed that the Court of the Divisional Commissioner for considering such matters is being done on Tuesday only and since the last Tuesday being a holiday the present writ application was filed for quashing the order in question. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that no action has been taken against the petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Control of Crime Act, 1981 for which the petitioners have agitated his grievance through this writ application, and as such, the present writ application deserves to be dismissed being misconceived. He, however, produced the copy of the order issued vide memo no. 1052 dated 15th May, 2011 whereby action has been taken by the District Magistrate, Saran in exercise of its power under sub-sections (1) & (2) of section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on being satisfied on the basis of the materials as referred in the order directing the petitioners to keep themselves away from the District of Saran from 11 AM of 16th May, 2011 till 8 PM of 19th May, 2011. However, the aforesaid order is not under challenge. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the writ application as also the copy of the order dated 15th May, 2011 as produced by the counsel for the State, I do not find any merit in this writ application. The same accordingly stands dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)