C.H.Nagabhushana Rao v. The Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies,City North, Chepauk, Chennai 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12.10.2012CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMANW.P.No.2464 of 2012C.H.Nagabhushana Rao...Petitioner Vs.The Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies, City North, Chepauk, Chennai 5....Respondent PRAYER:Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedingsNo.Nada. No.N3/1312/2010, dated 6.4.2010 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to release the mini Vanbearing registration No.TN-03-C 5908 and Eicher Mini Lorry bearing registration No.TN-18-B-1036 seized by the Assistant Commissionerof Civil Supplies, Anna Nagar Zone, Chennai on 5.3.2010 to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.C.PrakasamFor Respondents : Mr.K.Subramanian, Spl. Govt. Pleader *****

O R D E R The petitioner suffered a confiscation proceedingsNo.Nada No.N3/1312/2010 issued by the respondent dated 6.4.2010confiscating the Mini Van bearing registration No.TN-03-C 5908 and Eicher Mini Lorry bearing registration No.TN-18-B-1036 seized by the Assistant Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Anna Nagar Zone, Chennai on 5.3.2010. Besides the vehicles, rice bags in those vehicles were also seized and confiscated. The petitioner sought to question the aforesaid order, dated 6.4.2010 of the respondent that was passed under Section 6-A of the Essential CommoditiesAct, 1955. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 The respondent filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. The respondent, while countering the averments made in the writ petition, has stated that the petitioner has appeal remedy before the Principal District and Sessions Court under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable on account of availability of alternative remedy.3 Heard both sides.4 I am not inclined to go into the merits of the matter since appeal remedy is provided against the impugned order before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chennai as per section6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.5 At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that one month time is prescribed under Section 6-C of the Act for preferring an appeal and hence this Court may issue an appropriate direction to the appellate authority to entertain the appeal without reference to the delay, if it is filed within the stipulated period that may be fixed by this Court.6 Under these circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, while dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, the writ petitioner is permitted to approach the appellate forum within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in such event, the appellate authority is directed to decide the matter on merit without going into the issue of limitation.