Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1864 (ALL)

Premvati v. State of U. P. & Ors.

2013-07-16

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2013
Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Order dated 25.3.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short "The Act"). 3. It appears that in the Criminal Proceedings under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Act, the Tractor Trolley, which was in the name of Swami Deen, husband of the petitioner, was seized on the ground that the same was being used for transportation of the controlled commodity. 4. By the Order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Rampur in the aforesaid Criminal Proceedings, the Tractor Trolley was released in favour of the aforesaid Swami Deen subject to various conditions mentioned in the said Order. 5. In the mean-time, Proceedings under Section 6A of the Act for confiscation of the aforesaid Tractor Trolley, were initiated. 6. An Order dated 25.3.2013 was passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur in the said proceedings under Section 6A of the Act whereby the District Magistrate, Rampur, inter-alia, directed for confiscation of the aforesaid Tractor Trolley and the auction thereof. 7. The petitioner has, thereupon, filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. 8. Sub-section (1) of Section 6C of the Act, inter-alia, provides that any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under Section 6A of the Act, may appeal to the Appellate Authority within the period mentioned in the said provision. 9. The petitioner has, thus, an alternative remedy of filing Appeal against the said Order dated 25.3.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur. 10. In view of the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner of filing Appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 6C of the Act and keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the present Writ petition, we are not inclined to exercise our Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case. 11. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing Appeal to the petitioner, and the same is accordingly dismissed on the said ground. ___________