D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both sides. Perused the material placed before me. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is a trader. The competent authority confiscated his properties, by an order dated 3-11 -2001, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (for short the act ) on the ground of certain irregularities. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District judge, Ranga Reddy under Section 6-C of the Act with a detay. An application had been filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 to condone the said delay and the District judge, on merits, had dismissed the same. ( 3 ) NOW the only question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the present writ petition is maintainable against the order passed by the learned district Judge Ranga Reddy in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 to condone the deiay in filing the appeal. ( 4 ) THIS issue is no longer res Integra. It had fallen for consideration way back in 1974 (2) APLJ 305 and the same was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thakur das (dead) by L. Rs. v. State of Madhya pradesh and another wherein their lordships accepting the view taken by this court held that the District Judge is not a persona designata and the orders passed by the District Judge are amenable to the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 397 of Crl. P. C. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, the writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, the same shall be treated as Crl. Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to convert this writ petition as a Criminal revision Petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure. No costs.