Judgment R. Banumathi, J Challenge in this Appeal is the order of the learned single Judge setting aside the order of confiscation of seized rice bags and directing the Government to pay the market value of rice bags to the Writ Petitioner/first Respondent. 2. By consent of both sides, the Writ Appeal was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 3. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition and Writ Appeal are as follows:- .(i) On suspicion that rice bags meant for Public Distribution System [PDS] have been hoarded in violation of Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984 and Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card system) Order 1982, on 02.04.2000, the premises at No.140, Sri Ayyappan Industries Estate was inspected and it was noticed that 1244 bags weighing about 10.809 Mts has been stored in the premises owned by Natesan and the premises was being used by one Kasi Mariappan who does not have licence under Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984. Therefore, the said quantity of 1244 bags of rice together with the lorries involved were seized under the cover of Mahazar on the same day 02.04.2000 and the same was handed over to Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation go down on the next day. .(ii) Notice under Sec.6-B of Essential Commodities Act was issued to the said Kasi Mariappan and others and after due enquiry, the first Appellant passed orders vide Proceedings No.CS1/25443/2000 dated 23.09.2000 holding that the seized stock of rice was kept in an unlicensed premises without valid licence and it relates to PDS rice as per the certificate issued by Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Authorities [TNCSC] and the same was confiscated to Government. The said order was in the Writ Petition. 4. Appellants resisted the Writ Petition contending that first Respondent failed to prove that the seized stock of rice was the quantity taken delivery from Food Corporation of India in auction. After analysis of seized stock of rice, the Regional Manager, TNCSC, Tuticorin certified that the rice is Public Distribution System rice and for violation of Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984 and Essential Commodities Act, 1984 and under Sec. 6-A of E.C. Act, the rice was confiscated to Government. 5. After analysis of seized stock of rice, the Regional Manager, TNCSC, Tuticorin certified that the rice is Public Distribution System rice and for violation of Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984 and Essential Commodities Act, 1984 and under Sec. 6-A of E.C. Act, the rice was confiscated to Government. 5. The learned single Judge held that as per the instructions to be followed, Appellants did not serve the chemical analysis/quality analysis certificate to the first Respondent and holding that there was violation of statutory obligation, learned single Judge set aside the confiscation order and directed the Government to pay the market value of seized rice bags on the date of seizure viz. 02.04.2000 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. 6. Challenging the order of learned single Judge, Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the instructions are only the guidelines periodically issued and non-compliance of any such instructions cannot by itself vitiate the desire and the confiscation proceedings. It was further submitted that as against the confiscation order passed under Sec.6-A of E.C.Act, appeal lies only before the District Court. 7. On behalf of the first Respondent Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel contended that as per the instructions, Appellants failed to serve copy of the quality analysis report and non-compliance of the report would vitiate the entire proceedings and having regard to the passage of time, learned single Judge rightly directed the Authorities to pay the market value of the seized rice with interest. 8. Whether non-supply of quality analysis certificate would automatically result in vitiating the order of confiscation is the point falling for our consideration. 9. Learned single Judge mainly held that though first Respondent was served with Sec.6-A report was not served with the quality analysis certificate and there was violation of instructions dated 21.01.1988 violating the statutory obligation to furnish the copy of quality analysis certificate. 9. Learned single Judge mainly held that though first Respondent was served with Sec.6-A report was not served with the quality analysis certificate and there was violation of instructions dated 21.01.1988 violating the statutory obligation to furnish the copy of quality analysis certificate. The relevant portion of said instructions dated 21.01.1988 reads as under:- "In this connection, I am to state that, in general even if the sample accompanies the lorry, it is essential to draw samples from the consignment seized in three packets, seal them, hand over one to the person from whom the seizure is made, retain one with the office who seized the stock and send the third to the quality analyst and get it analysed by him and obtain a certificate from him as to whether both sample agree. A copy of the analysis certificate should be issued to the claimant of the consignment and he should be given an opportunity to appeal against the analysis certificate. Only thereafter final orders under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 should be passed after conducting enquiry." Laying emphais upon the above instructions issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies learned single Judge held that Government is under obligation to furnish quality analysis certificate to give an opportunity to appeal against the order of confiscation. 10. On behalf of the first Respondent, Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the orders passed in W.P.No.1892/1994 dated 112. 2000 [P.D.D.,J]; W.P.No.13476/1996 dated30.4.2002 [C.N.,J]; W.P.Nos.2817 & 2819/1995 dated 07. 2002 [D.M.,J] and W.P.No.12038/1995 dated 07. 2002 [A.K.,J] wherein the learned Judges have quashed the orders of confiscation. In W.P.Nos.2817 & 2819/1995 and W.P.No.12038/1995 after seizure, no samples were taken from the Writ Petitioners and the learned single Judges held that in the absence of collection of samples and sending the samples for quality analysis, the seizure orders cannot be sustained. 11. The case on hand stands on different footing. In this case, three samples were taken and one sample was sent to the Regional Manager, TNCSC, Tuticorin. After analysis of the sample, the Regional Manager has certified by the certificate dated 06.04.2000 that the stock of sample of rice is the produce of double boiled rice and the sample of rice conforms to Public Distribution System old stock. 12. In this case, three samples were taken and one sample was sent to the Regional Manager, TNCSC, Tuticorin. After analysis of the sample, the Regional Manager has certified by the certificate dated 06.04.2000 that the stock of sample of rice is the produce of double boiled rice and the sample of rice conforms to Public Distribution System old stock. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that first Respondents counsel sent a letter requesting only for Sec.6-A report and the first Respondent did not ask for quality analysis certificate. We have carefully gone through the File produced by the learned Additional Advocate General. By perusal of the letter dated 28. 2000, it is seen that the learned counsel for the first Respondent sent a letter to the District Collector, Tuticorin requesting to furnish copy of Sec.6-A report. On receipt of the telegram from the counsel for first Respondent on 28. 2000, the copies of the above records were sent to him through Courier on 09. 2000 by first Appellant in CS1/25443/2000 dated 38. 2000. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General even though, first Respondent sent requisition for Sec.6-A report, first Respondent did not ask for copy of quality analysis certificate. 13. Object of furnishing quality analysis certificate is to afford an opportunity to the claimant of consignment/stock to get the sample analysed, if he so desires. Writ Petitioner/first Respondent had not taken any steps to collect the quality analysis report (06.04.2000), even though, he has asked Sec.6-A report, seizure report and mahazar. If really, first Respondent desired to challenge the quality analysis certificate, he could have exercised the right and requested to send the sample for analysis. Without exhausting such right, first Respondent cannot complain of non-supply of the report or delay in supply of the report saying that he is deprived of the opportunity to challenge the report. Having not exercised the option to challenge the quality analysis report, it is not open to the first Respondent to contend that he is prejudiced by non-supply of quality analysis certificate. 14. The instructions of Commissioner of Civil Supplies (21. Having not exercised the option to challenge the quality analysis report, it is not open to the first Respondent to contend that he is prejudiced by non-supply of quality analysis certificate. 14. The instructions of Commissioner of Civil Supplies (21. 1988) provides for:-(i) taking three samples and hand over one to the person from whom the seizure is made; (ii) retain one with the office who seized the stock and (iii) send the third to the quality analyst to get it analysed and the copy of analysis certificate should be issued to the claimant of the consignment and he should be given an opportunity to appeal against the analysis certificate. The instructions given by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies are only an administrative instructions/guidelines which do not give rise to any legal right infavour of the aggrieved party. 15. Observing that administrative instructions would not give any legal right, in (2007) 8 SCC 212 [Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others v. G.Ratnam and others], the Supreme Court held as under:- "19. ...... Broadly speaking, the administrative rules, regulations and instructions, which have no statutory force, do not give rise to any legal right in favour of the aggrieved party and cannot be enforced in a court of law against the administration. The executive orders appropriately so-called do not confer any legally enforceable rights on any persons and impose no legal obligation on the subordinate authorities for whose guidance they are issued. Such an order would confer no legal and enforceable rights on the party concerned (delinquent employee in this case) even if any of the directions is ignored. Their breach may expose the subordinate authorities to disciplinary or other appropriate action, but they cannot be said to be in the nature of statutory rules having the force of law, subject to the jurisdiction of certiorari. 20. It is well settled that the Central Government or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not make such instructions statutory rules which are justiciable in certain circumstances. In order that such executive instructions have the force of statutory rules, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provision of the Constitution providing therefore. In order that such executive instructions have the force of statutory rules, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provision of the Constitution providing therefore. Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instructions that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 16. In our considered view, non-furnishing of quality analysis certificate by itself would not vitiate the seizure and confiscation. It is for the claimant to prove that he desired to challenge the quality analysis certificate and that non-supply of quality analysis certificate caused prejudice to him. 17. As we pointed out earlier, in this case, the sample was taken and the Regional Manager, TNCSC, Tuticorin also certified that the stock of seized rice conforms to Public Distribution System old stock. Though, first Respondent asked for Sec.6-A report and mahazar, first Respondent has not chosen to ask for furnishing of quality analysis certificate. There is nothing to show that the first Respondent desired to challenge the quality analysis certificate. First Respondent having not taken any steps to collect the quality analysis certificate, in our considered view, mere non-furnishing of quality analysis certificate would not vitiate the confiscation order. The learned single Judge was not right in saying that mere non-furnishing of quality analysis certificate would vitiate the seizure and therefore, the order of learned single Judge cannot be sustained. 18. It is pertinent to note that as per the G.O.Ms.No.288 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (G1), Department dated 08. 2001, as against the order passed under Sec.6-A of E.C.Act appeal lies before the Principal District Judge or the District Judge where there is no Principal District Judge as the Judicial authority within his jurisdiction in respect of the Districts in the State other than the Chennai City and the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai as the Judicial authority within the jurisdiction of Chennai City. 19. The question arises for consideration is whether at this distant point of time whether the matter has to be remitted back to the Authority. 19. The question arises for consideration is whether at this distant point of time whether the matter has to be remitted back to the Authority. The object of furnishing quality analysis certificate is to afford an opportunity to the claimant of the consignment to get the sample analysed if so desire. At this distant point of time, even if the matter is remitted back, it may not be possible to get the sample analysed. Therefore, at this distant point of time, we are not inclined to remit the matter back. 20. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. Setting aside the order of learned single Judge in W.P.No.19911/2000 dated 24. 2009, we hold that mere non-furnishing of quality analysis certificate would not by itself vitiate the seizure and confiscation. The claimant of the consignment should plead and prove that he desired to challenge the quality analysis certificate and non-furnishing of report caused prejudice to him depriving of an opportunity to challenge the report by further analysis. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1/2009 is closed. No costs.