Judgment :- This writ petition is to quash Ext. P9judgment of the District Judge, Thodupuzha. That judgment was rendered in C.M.A. No. 54/87 filed by the writ petitioner against the order of the Wild Life Preservation Officer, Vallakkadavu confiscating some pieces of teak wood timber and other finished articles under S.61Aof the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'). 2. The facts of the case can be capsulated thus: The Assistant Wild Life Preservation Officer, Vallakkadavu had entertained some doubt about the genuineness of certain piece of teakwood timber, one Almirah, one cot etc. kept in the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed title in respect of those goods. However, the officer having not satisfied with the claim, seized those goods under a mahazar. The goods were forwarded to the authorised officer for necessary action. On 25-7-1981 the petitioner filed a petition before the Field Director (Tiger Project), Kottayam praying to release seized goods. However, the goods were not released; on the other hand, the officer ordered confiscation under S.61A(2) of the Act. the petitioner, thereafter filed a C.M. Appeal before the District Judge as 19/1983 challenging the order of confiscation. That appeal was allowed and the order of confiscation was set aside. It appears, the Department then filed a writ petition before this court as O.P. No. 2910/85. This court as per Ext. P3 judgment allowed the authorities to continue further proceedings according to law. Thereafter fresh enquiry was started. Ultimately the authorised officer found that the seized goods are the property of the Government and ordered the confiscation accordingly. That is Ext. P6 order. That order was challenged by the petitioner in C.M. Appeal No. 54/87 under S.61D of the Act. The 2nd respondent District Judge dismissed the appeal as per Ext. P9 judgment. 3. The present petition has been filed under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution. The remedies under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution available to a citizen are distinct and separate. In this connection it is well to be recalled that an order under Art.226 is appealable under S.5 of the High Court Act whereas in the case of an order under Art.227 no such appeal will lie before Division Bench. Therefore it is necessary to examine whether the writ petition is substantially coming within the purview of Art.226 or 227. In this connection it is well to be recalled that an order under Art.226 is appealable under S.5 of the High Court Act whereas in the case of an order under Art.227 no such appeal will lie before Division Bench. Therefore it is necessary to examine whether the writ petition is substantially coming within the purview of Art.226 or 227. This can be done only by perusing the pleadings and relief sought for by the petitioner. The substantial prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext. P9 judgment of the District Judge by issuance of a writ of certiorari. There is no particular pleading in the writ petition pointing to invoke the power of Superintendence of the High Court under Art.227. After hearing the arguments and after examining pleadings and relief sought for in the writ petition, I am satisfied, this petition substantially comes within the purview of Art.226 of the Constitution. 4. The next question that arises for consideration is whether a writ of certiorari can be issued in this case. The 2nd respondent, District Judge is exercising the powers as provided under S.61D of the Act. In the absence of any provision in the Act prescribing the powers with regard to various procedural matters, the District Judge has to exercise all powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 while dealing with an appeal under S.61D of the Act. In that situation the appeal under the said section has to be dealt by the District Judge as a civil appeal before the District Court in the ordinary course. Therefore it cannot be said that a judgment passed under S.61D of by the District Court is not a judgment of the Civil Court. The District Judge therefore cannot be said to be functioning in the facts of this case as a 'persona designata' like Subordinate Judge exercising powers of appellate authority under S.18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 5. A Division Bench of this-Court, in Union of India v. Vijaya Moliini Mills reported in 1992 (1) KLT 404 held that a writ of certiorari is not maintainable in respect of a judgment or order passed by a civil court. In other words a writ of cerliorari cannot be issued to a civil court. 5. A Division Bench of this-Court, in Union of India v. Vijaya Moliini Mills reported in 1992 (1) KLT 404 held that a writ of certiorari is not maintainable in respect of a judgment or order passed by a civil court. In other words a writ of cerliorari cannot be issued to a civil court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before me that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shafi v. Addl.D. & s.j. Allahabad (AIR 1977 SC 836), State of M.P. v. Balm Lai (AIR 1977 SC 1718 and Naresh v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1967 SC 1) took a different view. I am not inclined to accept this submission, for the reason that the Division Bench has considered all the aforesaid decisions in' Vijaya Mohini Mil Is' case, supra. The matter is concluded by the decision of the Division Bench in the aforesaid case. A similar view has been adopted earlier by this court in NaUya Koya v. Administrator (1968 KLT 60). That being so, I am not inclined to consider this writ petition on merits in as much as no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner in this case. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.