1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.210 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 K.Rathinasamy ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli. 2.The Inspector of police, C.S.CID, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.Na1/79559/09 dated 07.07.2010 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner :Mr.T.LeninKumar For Respondents :Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has come forward to challenge an order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. It was alleged that the petitioner was responsible for smuggling 10000 kilos of boiled rice, which is kept by Tamil Nadu Civil Services Corporation for distribution under PDS. The lorry bearing registration No. TN39-D-8998, in which the rice was smuggled, was checked by the surprise squad and it was found that the lorry had contained 200 bags of ration rice. Even while the enquiry was going on with the driver of the vehicle by one Kumaresan, the second accused by name Sundar @ Jagedeesan, was escaped from the spot. The statement was recorded that the rice was being smuggled to Kerala state by one Sundar @ Jagedeesan and the rice was taken from the Public Distribution System with a view to sell it with a premium and hence, a criminal case was registered in Cr.No.219 of 2009 on 25.11.2009 on the the file of the second respondent. 3. It is in that backdrop of the case, the lorry as well as the seized rice was confiscated in terms of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and forfeited by the Government. When the petitioner was given the order dated 07.07.2010, impugned in the writ petition, it was clearly stated that as against the order of confiscation, an appeal lies under Section 6-C either to the State or to any judicial authority. It has been notified that the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli is the notified https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 appellate authority and there is remedy provided by way of a statutory appeal. 4. It is not open to the petitioner to file writ petition and challenge the said order, when appeal lies before the Judicial Authority and therefore, the petitioner was wrong in stating that there was no alternative and efficacious remedy in para 4 of the affidavit. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( RTI Act ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR jikr To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli. 2.The Inspector of police, C.S.CID, Tirunelveli. 1CC TO MR. T. LENIN KUMAR, ADVOCATE, SR: 37325: 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 37569: DM::2011:NOVEMBER:11:: Order made in W.P.(MD)No.210 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 01.11.2011 2P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/