AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.S.R. Varma, J.—Heard both sides. Perused the material placed before me.
Petitioner is a trader. The competent authority confiscated his properties, by an order dated 3-11-2001, u/s 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (for short ''the Act'') on the ground of certain irregularities. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Ranga Reddy u/s 6-C of the Act with a delay. An application had been filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said delay and the District Judge, on merits, had dismissed the same.
Now the only question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the present writ petition is maintainable against the order passed by the learned District Judge Ranga Reddy in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
This issue is no longer res Integra. It had fallen for consideration way back in 1974 (2) APLJ 305 and the same was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thakur Das (dead) by Thakur Das (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, wherein their lordships accepting the view taken by this Court held that the District Judge is not a persona designata and the orders passed by the District Judge are amenable to the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court u/s 397 of Crl.P.C.
Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, the same shall be treated as Crl. Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to convert this writ petition as a Criminal Revision Petition u/s 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure. No costs.