THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.32393 of 2011 Between: V.P. Pentaiah PETITIONER And 1. The Joint Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District and others. RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner, who is a fair price shop dealer, has filed this writ petition challenging the orders of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, the 1st respondent herein, vide proceedings No.CS6/639/2011, dated 29.10.2011 confiscating the seized stock under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of shop No.96, situated a t Mogpal Village, Nizamabad Mandal. The Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement), Nizamabad, the 3rd respondent herein, inspected the shop of the petitioner on 18.07.2011 and found certain variations in the stocks between the ground balance and the book balance. He also found that the weight and measures used by the petitioner are weighing 1 kg., less per scale, and that the authorization of the shop expired on 31.03.2011 and the petitioner was running the shop without stock board, price list etc. Therefore, the 3rd respondent seized the stock available in the shop and filed a report under Section 6-A of the Act before the 1st respondent for appropriate action. The 1st respondent on consideration found that the petitioner contravened the Control Order and accordingly ordered confiscation of the seized stock. It is against this order the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Even though an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 6-C of the Act is available to the petitioner, he has not chosen to avail the same, nor is he inclined to do so and the learned counsel pursued this Writ Petition for a decision. The learned counsel contends that before the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was not given the mandatory Notice under Section 6-B of the Act, thus the impugned order is unsustainable. It is true that Section 6-B of the Act provides that before an order of confiscation is made, it is imperative that a notice should be given to the party concerned. It is therefore to be seen in the instant case whether the petitioner had been given such notice. In the impugned order, it is stated that a notice under Section 6- B of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 22.07.2011 directing him to file his written explanation besides giving him an opportunity to represent his case and for appearance on 30.07.2011. Since the petitioner disputed the said fact, this Court has directed the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies to get instructions. Accordingly the record has been produced to day. A perusal of the record shows that show cause notice dated 22.07.2011 issued under Section 6-B of the Act was dispatched on 25.07.2011 and the same was received by the petitioner on 27.07.2011. After receiving the same, the petitioner submitted representation on 30.07.2011 to the 1st respondent acknowledging that he received the show cause notice on 27.07.2011 and sought for time on the ground that he suffered leg injury in an accident. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner’s contention that there was no notice is totally false and the petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands. The aforesaid contention being the sole contention which is found untenable; and no other ground being urged, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 13th December, 2011. Js.