ORDER : Seeking quashing of order dated 21.12.2013 whereby, one of the Branch Offices of the petitioner Company at Palamau has been sealed, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner Company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 03.03.1999. The petitioner Company is in the business of real estate having branches all over the country. It has been accredited with ISO 9001-2008 certificate. The Company has launched several projects for building commercial complexes, hotels and farms in different cities of the State of Jharkhand. The RBI made certain enquiries into the working of the petitioner-Company however, nothing irregular was detected. Vide letter dated 02.09.2011, the National Housing Bank clarified that the petitioner-Company does not fall under the purview of National Housing Bank Act, 1987 and its annual accounts for financial year 2008-09 does not disclose any outstanding public deposit. In turn, the RBI vide communication dated 06.09.2012 informed the Department of Institutional Finance, Government of Jharkhand that the petitioner company is not a Non-Banking Finance Company, still one of the office premises of the petitioner-Company has been sealed by the respondent-Sub-divisional Officer. 3. Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the sealing of one of the offices at Palamau is without jurisdiction. The petitioner's office was sealed not in connection with registration of the FIR. Referring to letter dated 13.08.2012, the learned Sr. counsel submits that the respondent-State issued a letter to the RBI for relaxing the ban imposed upon the petitioner-Company. It is contended that letter dated 21.12.2013 has been issued in ignorance of the Government's stand and therefore, the said order is liable to be quashed. 4. Opposing the challenge by the petitioner to order dated 21.12.2013, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the issue raised by the petitioner has already been settled by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1195/2013 and other cases. It is submitted that pursuant to order dated 21.12.2013, a criminal case has already been lodged and therefore, no interference is required in the matter. 5. From the materials brought on record, it appears that an enquiry was instituted in the matter and certain illegality in functioning of the petitioner's business was found. The activities of the petitioner-Company was kept under observation. An enquiry team was constituted in terms of the guidelines issued by the RBI vide letter dated 30.03.2012. 5. From the materials brought on record, it appears that an enquiry was instituted in the matter and certain illegality in functioning of the petitioner's business was found. The activities of the petitioner-Company was kept under observation. An enquiry team was constituted in terms of the guidelines issued by the RBI vide letter dated 30.03.2012. Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Magnesite of 1st Class has power to search a place. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau has passed order dated 21.12.2013 in the capacity of the District Magistrate. It is not in dispute that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Reliance of the petitioner on communication dated 20.02.2013 is misplaced. An inspection team was constituted pursuant to orders dated 28.09.2013 and 24.10.2013. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of the enquiry report. Obviously, when letter dated 20.02.2013 was issued, these facts were not in existence. Moreover, the issue raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding would involve an adjudication on questions of fact. From the impugned order dated 21.12.2013, it is evident that the authority has, prima facie, found involvement of the petitioner-Company in conducting business in violation of statutory provisions. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner Company may approach the Court in seisin with Sadar Sahar P. S. Case No. 584/2013 for desealing of its office premises.