[2025:RJ-JP:46647] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1401/2025 Krishan Kumar @ Raju S/o Sh. Taital Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Barwada, P.s. Samod, Dist. Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. The Director General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Rural, Dist. Jaipur (Raj.). 4. The Station House Of Police, P.s. Samod, Dist. Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1393/2025 Tarachand S/o Sh. Jagannath, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Barwada, P.s. Samod, Dist. Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. The Director General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Rural, Dist. Jaipur (Raj.). 4. The Station House Of Police, Ps- Samod, Dist. Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Brahma Prakash For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG Mr.Amit Punia, PP [2025:RJ-JP:46647] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1401/2025] JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/11/2025 1. By way of filing these criminal writ petitions, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, City (North), Jaipur by which an order has been passed under Section 3 of Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 (for short, “the Act of 1975”) by which a direction has been issued against the petitioners that he would not enter within the territory of Police Station Rajakheda, District Dholpur for a period of six months. 2. At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor has taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of these petitions and he submits that the order passed under Section 3 of the Act of 1975 is appealable under Section 6 of the Act of 1975, but without availing the said alternative statutory remedy of filing appeal, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petitions, hence, these petitions are not maintainable. 3. This fact is not in dispute that any order passed under Section 3 of the Act of 1975 is appealable under Section 6 of the Act of 1975. Admittedly, the petitioners have not availed the statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 6 of the Act of 1975 before the statutory Appellate Authority. 4. It is a well settled proposition of law that whenever alternative statutory remedy is available to a person aggrieved, he cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the said Authority. [2025:RJ-JP:46647] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1401/2025] 5. On this count alone, the instant petitions stand disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file statutory appeal under Section 6 of the Act of 1975 before the statutory Appellate Authority. In case, such appeal is preferred by the petitioners within a period of 15 days from today, it is expected from the Appellate Authority to make all possible endeavors to decide the said appeal expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter, ignoring the period of limitation. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petitions stand disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /11-12