Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—Section 3 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') confers upon the District Magistrate a jurisdiction to pass an order, inter alia, directing a person, who is an 'anti-social element' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act, to remove himself outside the district or part thereof, as the case may be, by such route, if any, and within such time as may be specified in the order and to resist him from entering the district or the specified part thereof, until, the expiry of such period, not exceeding six months as may be specified in the order; should the conditions specified under the said Section exist.

2. It is in the exercise of said power under Section 3 of the Act that the District Magistrate, Sheohar passed an order of externment dated 17.08.2021 in Case No. 7 of 2021 against the petitioner requiring him to remove himself from the district of Sheohar and to leave the jurisdiction of Piprahi Police Station from 17.08.2021 to 17.02.2022. By the said order, he had further been directed to remain physically present before Fenhara Police Station in the district of East Champaran every day, between 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 O'clock during the aforesaid period of externment i.e. 17.08.2021 to 17.02.2022. The said order of the District Magistrate, Sheohar dated 17.08.2021 is under challenge in the present writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Evidently, the period of externment came to an end on 17.02.2022. This writ petition was filed soon after the impugned order was passed and came to be formally registered on 07.10.2021. One of the stands, which has been taken on behalf of the respondents to oppose the maintainability of the present writ application, is that since the period of externment has already expired, this writ petition has become infructuous and no useful purpose would be served by entertaining the writ petition, any more.

4. It is the stand of the petitioner in response to the said plea on behalf of the State that declaring a person an 'anti-social element' is an essential condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Act. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been declared to be an anti-social element which is stigmatic in character and, therefore, the petitioner's right to challenge the conclusion of the District Magistrate that the petitioner is an anti-social element still survives. For this reason, the writ petition deserves to be entertained by this Court despite termination of the period of externment, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended.

5. In view of the controversy relating to maintainability of the writ petition with reference to the period of operation of the impugned order having lapsed and the petitioner's contention that the finding recorded by the District Magistrate, while passing the order is stigmatic, we have considered it apt to address the question as to whether an order passed under Section 3 of the Act is stigmatic or not, in the light of the definition of the expression 'anti-social element' underlying Section 2(d) of the Act. Only if the Court reaches a conclusion that the declaration of a person as an anti-social element is stigmatic in character, the Court would be required to consider the grounds set out by the petitioner to assail the impugned order; else it would be an exercise in futility to proceed with the matter, term of externment having already expired. We are proceeding, therefore, to deal with this aspect first.

6. In the background of the submissions which have been advanced on behalf of the parties on this point, to begin with, we need to take note of the definition of the expression 'anti-social element' falling under Section 2(d) of the Act, which reads as under:—

"(d) "Anti-social elements" means a person who—

(i) either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of