Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal filed against the order passed by our learned brother Koshi, J. on 29.9.1950 dismissing O.P. 39 of 1950 on the file of this Court. 2. The said O.P. was filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to bring up and quash the order passed by the Government on 5th May 1950 directing the acquisition, for value, of a certain quantity of paddy under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, V of 1950 and the rules framed under S. 3 thereof and a consequent writ of mandamus directing the Government to release the said paddy to the petitioner-appellant. 3. The petitioner-appellant had filed an earlier application in this Court, O.P. 21 of 1950, for a like relief in respect of an order passed by the Civil Supplies Commissioner or relating to the same paddy. This Court rejected that petition on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to a remedy by way of an appeal to the Government. The petitioner accordingly did appeal to Government, but the order of the Government in appeal being adverse to him, he has now come up again to this Court and filed O.P. 39 of 1950. 4. On 9th September 1950, on which date O.P. 39 of 1950 was filed, the appellant filed another petition, C.M.P. 1356 of 1950, in this Court, for an injunction restraining the Government and their officers from taking possession of the paddy in question. Notice was ordered upon this application on the same day and the matter was posted for hearing on the 12th. Notice was given to the Advocate General on the same day, as seen from a memo filed in this case. It is stated on behalf of the appellant that notice was served on the Tahsildar at Alleppey the very same day, though at about 9 P.M. at night. On the 12th, this Court passed the following order on C.M.P. 1356 of 1950:- "The learned Government Pleader wanted a week to get down records from the Government to argue the main petition. This petition is allowed. The counter-petitioners are restrained from taking possession of the paddy, which they have not already taken possession, of, for a period of 10 days". This petition is allowed. The counter-petitioners are restrained from taking possession of the paddy, which they have not already taken possession, of, for a period of 10 days". On the 19th September an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State to the effect that the paddy in question was actually taken possession of on the 10th instant and distributed to the public in ignorance of the appellant having approached this Court and filed petitions as aforesaid. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant the next day this statement is sought to be contradicted, but there is no definite averment that the paddy has not been distributed as sworn to in the affidavit. On 22nd September the matter came up for hearing and was ultimately disposed of on 29th September by the order which is appealed against. 5. The paddy in question was stocked in the granary belonging to the wife and children of Puthiyillath Damodaran Namboodiri. The wife and children belong to a Nair Tarwad called Nemmalasseri House. Damodaran Namboodiri's wife is called Kunhukutty Parvathi Amma. 6. In connection with an enquiry regarding this stock of paddy, the authorities appear to have gone to the place in April 1950 and measured 375 paras and sealed the granary containing the balance. On the 1st of May statements were taken from Damodaran Namboodiri, his wife Parvathi Amma and their son the said Narayana Panicker, which revealed that the paddy in question belonged to one Moolecheril Ouseph Chacko to whom the granary had been let for rent. Damodaran Namboodiri, the father is stated to be in management of the affairs of the tarwad. Narayana Panicker is not a permanent resident of the house, but is more often away from the place on business. The attestation made by Narayana Panicker to the mahazar prepared in April when the authorities came to the place on the first occasion indicating that the stock of paddy belongs to the appellant was in ignorance of the real state of affairs which he came to know from his father afterwards as he was not at home at the time. 7. It is the order passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies upon the aforesaid and other material that led to the first O.P. 21 of 1950 already mentioned. 8. 7. It is the order passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies upon the aforesaid and other material that led to the first O.P. 21 of 1950 already mentioned. 8. The appellant's real grievance would appear to be that he would be unable to cultivate his land to the extent of 70 acres for want of seed paddy which was in the stock of paddy in question and that he is not even given the price of the stock of paddy acquired by the State. 9. It is stated that Damodaran Namboodiri who mentioned in his statement dated 1st May that Ouseph Chacko is the owner of the paddy has gone back upon that statement subsequently and accepted the title of the appellant to the paddy, the statement of the 1st of May being sought to be got over on the alleged ground of undue influence exercised by certain subordinate officers of Government. It also appears that subsequently Ouseph Chacko himself filed an affidavit disowning title to the stock of paddy and accepting the appellant's title thereto. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant raised various questions in the course of the argument. He contended that Act V of 1950 under which the State took action in acquiring the paddy is ultra vires, the orders of Government purporting to act under the said statute are also ultra vires and that the appellant is entitled to have his fundamental right of property enforced by appropriate writs issued by this Court. 11. The subject matter of the relief sought viz., the stock of paddy having now ceased to exist by having been distributed to the public for consumption, there is no need to consider the various questions raised by the appellant as a decision thereon would not lead to the grant of any effective relief in the absence of the subject-matter. The learned counsel for the appellant did not attribute any bad faith to the several Tahsildars or their superiors who had occasion to concern themselves in this matter and fairly agreed that they may be taken to have acted bonafide under the circumstances disclosed in this case. 12. Mr. The learned counsel for the appellant did not attribute any bad faith to the several Tahsildars or their superiors who had occasion to concern themselves in this matter and fairly agreed that they may be taken to have acted bonafide under the circumstances disclosed in this case. 12. Mr. Sankara Pillai, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State mentioned that in view of the affidavit filed by the said Ouseph Chacko, disowning the title to the stock of paddy there would not be difficulty in the appellant getting the price of the stock of paddy acquired by Government and distributed to the public. He also stated that the Government have made arrangements to supply cultivators with the seed paddy required for cultivation and that the petitioner would, on application, be supplied with the required quantity of seed paddy. Under the circumstances, the order appealed against has to be confirmed though not exactly for the reasons mentioned therein. 13. We cannot help remarking that notice having been served upon the Advocate-General as also on the Tahsildar on the day on which the application for injunction was filed and notice ordered, the acquisition and distribution of paddy the next day when the matter stood posted for hearing in this Court two days later, would lead to a strong suspicion that there was an attempt to circumvent the proceedings in court. If a party, knowing that his opponent has either approached the court or is taking steps to approach it for a certain specific relief, does anything to make the grant of the relief by way of prevention, ineffective, the court has always jurisdiction to pass orders even in ordinary cases, in a mandatory form and to direct restoration of the status quo ante in the manner and to the extent possible. It will be an a fortiori case when the relief claimed is for a grant of any of the writs or directions contemplated by Art.226 of the Constitution of India. It will be an a fortiori case when the relief claimed is for a grant of any of the writs or directions contemplated by Art.226 of the Constitution of India. But however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of evidence and we have to proceed on the strength of the affidavit to the effect that the acquisition and distribution were made in ignorance of the proceedings in court which may perhaps be true as the mahazar prepared at the time of acquisition shows that the acquisition was made pursuant to an order issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies on 7th September 1950, that is, two days prior to the appellant-petitioner filing his petition in this Court. We shall content ourselves with observing that the Government should not countenance dubious tactics being pursued by their departments or servants. 14. The appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.