Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the impugned order dated 25.3.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Etah (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), whereby he has directed externment of the petitioner from the district Etah for a period of six months.

2. The learned Additional Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that Section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The learned A.G.A. further submitted that the petitioner instead of approaching this Court, should have filed an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 6 of the Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that despite there being availability of efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Section 6 of the Act, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable in view of the fact that the District Magistrate, Etah, had no jurisdiction