IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.537 of 2011 MUBARAK HUSSAIN @ MUBARAK ALI, son of Abdul Latif, resident of Village Mohammadpur, P.S. Mohammadpur, District Gopalganj. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj. 4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gopalganj. 5. The Officer-in-Charge of Mohammadpur Police Station, Gopalganj. ---Respondents ----------- 2. 13.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel No.11. The petitioner prays for quashing the order vide Memo No.464 dated 25th of April, 2011, as contained in Annexure 4, passed by the Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’), whereby he was directed to remove himself from the entire District of Gopalganj between 5 A.M. of 26th of April, 2011 to 5 P.M. of 10th of May, 2011. The petitioner also prays for quashing of the order dated 29th of April, 2011, as contained in Annexure 6, by which the period of his externment has been extended up to the period of 23rd of May, 2011. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid order has been passed after giving an opportunity of hearing. A show cause notice dated 20th of April, 2011, as contained in Annexure 2, was issued which was replied by the petitioner on 23rd - 2 - of April, 2011, as contained in Annexure 3. The District Magistrate passed the impugned order on 25th of April, 2011. It is submitted that although notice was issued to the petitioner but it did not mention specific details in order to show that the petitioner was an anti-social element. Learned counsel submits that there is no criminal case against the petitioner. It is further submitted that it appears that the District Magistrate has passed the order in haste. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice, according to the petitioner, was vague as it did not spell out the details to show that the petitioner was an anti-social element and in support of such submission has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Koeri v. State of Bihar, reported in 1981 Bihar Law Judgments 357, as also another decision of this Court in the case of Naresh Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 1980(28) B.L.J.R. 164, to show that the notice being vague and, as such, the same could not be sustained in law. It is accordingly submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General no.8 appearing for the State supports the impugned order and submits that on perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the District Magistrate, while passing the order, has considered the report of the concerned Superintendent of Police as also the Sub- Divisional Police Officer with respect to the petitioner and heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The impugned order indicates that the petitioner was a man of criminal antecedents having criminal cases against him, which is apparent from the - 3 - notice, and upon consideration of the materials brought on the record, the impugned order has been passed and, as such, it does not suffer from any illegality. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that notwithstanding the above, the petitioner has filed the writ application without exhausting the statutory effective remedy of appeal before the concerned Divisional Commissioner as provided under section 6 of the Act who has also the power to stay the order under sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act. Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ application may be summarily dismissed. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the writ application and the impugned order, I find that the impugned has been passed by the District Magistrate considering the materials brought on the record against the petitioner and on being satisfied that the presence of the petitioner may not allow the smooth conduct of the Panchayat Election, 2011 since the petitioner may terrorise the voters as also the candidate. Besides the above, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed the writ application without exhausting the effective statutory remedy of appeal as also the other avenues available to the petitioner under the aforesaid Act before the District Magistrate as also the State Government. The decisions, which have been cited on behalf of the petitioner, are against the issuance of notice. However, since the facts of the present case are different as the final order after notice was passed by the District Magistrate and, as such, those decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the - 4 - present case. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same is, thus, dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)