M. NAGAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the common order dated 2 3-1981 passed by the Sessions Judge, UK, Karwar in Crl. A no. 19/81 along with other appeals, di - missing the same as being not maintainable and confirming the order dated 31-3 1981 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, UK, Karwar in No. CSD EOM- sr 34/80-81. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are :- that on 2 3 1981, PSI of Sirsi Market yard conducted a surprise raid in Sirsi town and checked the accounts of the mill premises of the petitioner and on verification he found that the petitioner possessed 22 quintals of rice (Alur Sanna), 20 quintals of Raja Bhog, raw rice and 5 quintals of TI 41 raw rice, in all 47 quintals in exces of the stock recorded in the accounts. The PSI attached the said stock and gave the same to the safe custody of the opponent and also registered a case in crime No. 16/81 of the said PS and submitted proposals to the higher authorities under S. 6a of the Essential commodities Act, (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act') and also prayed that the seized stock may be disposed of as it is a perishable commodity. The Dy. Commissioner after receipt of the said report passed an order dated 31-3-1981 holding that after perusal of the report of the psi that he is of the opinion that the rice so attached was perishable in nature and to avoid further deterioration in the quality of the seized rice he thought it fit to order to deliver the said 47 quintals of rice to the agricultural Produce and Marketing Processing and Marketing Co-operative Society ltd. , Sirsi, for distribution to consumers on ration cards at Government rates through fair price shops nominated by the tahsildar, Sirsi and he also directed that the proceeds should be credited by the said society within 15 days to the PD Account of the Dy. Commissioner under the head account "509 Capital Outlay Food and nutrition (1) Supply Scheme" and report compliance together with the credit challan. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the sessions Judge at UK in Crl. Commissioner under the head account "509 Capital Outlay Food and nutrition (1) Supply Scheme" and report compliance together with the credit challan. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the sessions Judge at UK in Crl. A No. 19/81 who heard the said appeal along with other appeals filed by other persons from whom also rice had been seized and passed the common order as afore said holding that the said appeal was not maintainable and accordingly rejected the same. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order has challenged its legality and correctness in this Revision Petition. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed before this Court that the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner, UK. Dist. was an order purported to be one under S. 6a of the Essential commodities Act of 1955. The Dy. Commissioner has passed a preliminary order under the Act. There is no provision of law provided under the Act either to prefer an appeal or a revision against such an order. What is provided under the said act is, the one as contemplated under S. 6c of the Act against an order passed under s. 6a or the Act with regard to confiscation, etc. The order passed by the Dy. Commissioner is an order as already stated under s. 6 A (2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Meccai strenuously contended that there is no provision for appeal against the order passed under S. 6 A (2) of the Act. He contended that when an appeal is provided under S. 6a by implication, it follows that appeal also lies against such an order. The same contention was raised before the lower appellate Court which was rightly negatived, I am afraid that the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. If that was the intention of the legislature, it would have been made specifically clear that an order passed under S. 6a (2) of the Act is also appealable under S. 6c of the Act, and if that is so by implication it cannot be read what was not intended by the legislature. Further, the petitioner is also not prejudiced in as much as the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner is only for the preservation and to prevent further deterioration of the seized rice. Further, the petitioner is also not prejudiced in as much as the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner is only for the preservation and to prevent further deterioration of the seized rice. He ordered the sale through the proper society to the card holders at the controlled rates and thereafter to deposit the amount so realised to the account in question. If the petitioner ultimately succeeds in the case he is entitled to the amount in deposit. From that apart the legal position stated is also clear in this behalf, therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel that there is illegality in the impugned order; and hence the finding of the sessions Judge that no appeal lies against an order passed under S. 6a (2) of the Act cannot be interfered with. ( 5 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. But however the petitioner is at liberty to approach and agitate in the proper forum to any of the reliefs that he is entitled to. --- *** --- .