IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.561 of 2011 BRAJ KISHORE SINGH @ BUCHI SINGH SON OF RAM DEV SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.S.BHOREY,DISTRICT GOPALGANJ ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOPALGANJ 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GOPALGANJ 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER,MATHUA,DISTT.GOPALGANJ ------ RESPONDENTS ----------- 02/ 19.05.2011 Heard Mr.Manan Kumar Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner has challenged the notice issued under Section 3(3) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 contained in Annexure-1 as well as the final order passed by the District Magistrate, Goaplganj as contained in Annexure-3. The petitioner was served notice directing him to show cause by 02.05.2011 at 3.30 P.M. as to why an order under Section 3(3) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 be not passed. The petitioner filed his show cause (annexure-2) and thereafter vide Annexure-3 final order was passed. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order contained in Annexure-3 was passed on pre-determination without taking into consideration the show cause filed by 2 him. It has also been submitted that a vague notice without mentioning the cases in detail as contained in Annexure 1 was served upon him and due to this vague notice, it was not possible for him to file effective show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in exercise of original jurisdiction, the Apex Court intervened in the matter and granted relief. In this connection, attention has been drawn to the decision in the case of Whirlpool Corporation .Vrs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others) reported in (1998) 8 SCC page 1 and on this basis it has been submitted that in the present case, the principle of natural justice was not followed. So the notice as well as the final order is vague and fit to be quashed. We have perused the orders and heard the submissions. Under Section 6 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 there is a provision for appeal by any person aggrieved with the order passed under Section 3 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act. In view of 3 specific provision of appeal we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner files an appeal under Section 6 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 before the Commissioner, then the delay shall be condoned and the appeal will be decided on its own merit expeditiously without being prejudiced by this order. With the above observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) ( Gopal Prasad, J.)