Premvati vs State of U.P. and Others

Satya Poot Mehrotra and Anjani Kumar Mishra, JJ.—We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the Order dated 25.3.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur u/s 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short "The Act").

It appears that in the criminal proceedings u/s 3 read with section 7 of the Act, the Tractor-Trolley, which was in the name of Swami Deen, husband of the petitioner, was seized on the ground that the same was being used for transportation of the controlled commodity.

By the Order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Rampur in the aforesaid criminal proceedings, the Tractor-Trolley was released in favour of the aforesaid Swami Deen subject to various conditions mentioned in the said Order.

In the mean-time, proceedings u/s 6-A of the Act for confiscation of the aforesaid Tractor-Trolley, were initiated.

An Order dated 25.3.2013 was passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur in the said proceedings u/s 6-A of the Act whereby the District Magistrate, Rampur, inter alia, directed for confiscation of the aforesaid Tractor-Trolley and the auction thereof.

The petitioner has, thereupon, filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.

Sub-section (1) of section 6-C of the Act, inter alia, provides that any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation u/s 6-A of the Act, may appeal to the Appellate Authority within the period mentioned in the said provision.

The petitioner has, thus, an alternative remedy of filing Appeal against the said Order dated 25.3.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur.

In view of the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner of filing Appeal under sub-section (1) of section 6-C of the Act and keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the present writ petition, we are not inclined to exercise our Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing Appeal to the petitioner, and the same is accordingly dismissed on the said ground.