High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 10 MAD CK 0220

C.H. Nagabhushana Rao vs Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Chennai

Madras High Court · Decided on 12 October 2012 · Citation: (2013) 2 MLJ 243

HON’BLE JUDGES
D. Hariparanthaman, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 2464 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 359 words

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The petitioner suffered a confiscation proceedings No. Nada No. N3/1312/2010 issued by the respondent dated 6.4.2010 confiscating 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 u/s 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 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 u/s 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable on account of availability of alternative remedy.

2.

Heard both sides.

3.

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 Section 6-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.

4.

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that one month time is prescribed u/s 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. 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.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.