Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 6.7.2011 terminating and blacklisting the petitioner as a hulling agent of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner took out the Modern Rice Mill for lease and running the same in the name and style of Sri Jayalakshmi Traders/Sri Jayalakshmi Modern Rice Mill for the past several years and he was appointed as Hulling Agent for Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation without any adverse remarks. As per the arrangement, the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation will supply paddy to the rice mills for hulling purpose, only on the basis of the deposit made by the rice mill owners in favour of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, and after depositing the amount, the paddy will be supplied. According to the petitioner, he has deposited Rs.5 lakhs as cash with the respondents and also gave bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs in favour of the respondent-Corporation for supply of paddy for hulling purpose only to the extent of Rs.15 lakhs. 3. On 27.4.2011, during the course of hulling process, when the paddy was taken from other place to the petitioners rice mill, deficiency of about 57 bags of paddy and also 161 bags of PDS rice was noticed inside the mill premises as it was found in a distant place. The said quantity of paddy and also the rice were seized and enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is pending. In the meanwhile, the petitioners hulling agency was cancelled by order of the Senior Regional manager dated 12.5.2011, against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent and the same was also dismissed, by order dated 6.7.2011. 4. The contention raised by the petitioner is that when enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is pending, the action of respondents in terminating the hulling agency and blacklisting the petitioner, is not justified and the matter in issue is covered by the judgment of this Court made in W.P.No.8844 of 2011, dated 12.7.2011, wherein the learned Judge has followed the earlier order made in W.P. (MD) No.9214 of 2010, dated 19.8.2010 and held that before completion of enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the respondent-Corporation is not justified in terminating the contract. In the said order, several other judgments rendered by this Court and the Madurai Bench of this Court have also been cited. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no appeal has been filed against any one of the said orders of this Court and orders of this Court has been implemented by the respondents. The said submission is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Following the said orders, the impugned order is set aside, granting liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if it is required to be proceeded after finalisation of enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.