Order Since common issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by means of common order. 2. The petitioner is the proprietorix of a rice mill known as M/s.Sarani Modern Rice Mill at Mahalipatti Colony at Madurai. 3. The petitioner was also appointed as a hulling agent of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Madurai Region by the Senior Regional Manager, Madurai Region. In pursuance of the said agency, the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Madurai used to supply paddy to the petitioner for the purpose of hulling in her mill and to return back the required quantity of rice. 4. According to the petitioner, on 14.12.2010, she had received 1200 bags of paddy, on 15.12.2010, 400 bags of paddy and subsequently, another 600 bags. Thereafter, the petitioner had hulled a portion of the paddy also. As on 19.12.2010, there was 1362 bags of paddy (weighing 54.106.500 metric tonnes) and 570 bags of boiled rice (weighing 28.66.1 metric tonns) in the Mill. There were also 28 empty gunny bags. 5. On the orders of the District Collector, alleging that there were complaints of mal-practices in the rice-mill, the District Supply Officer made a surprise inspection in the mill of the petitioner on 19.12.2010. He found the above quantity of rice as well as paddy. He suspected that they were meant for Public Distribution System and they were illegally kept in the rice mill. On that allegation, the entire quantity of paddy as well as rice was seized by the District Supply Officer under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. 6. The petitioner resisted the same stating that it was meant to be supplied only to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, as per the agency business, after hulling. This was not accepted by the District Supply Officer. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act was initiated by the third respondent, who is the competent authority under the Act. The paddy and rice seized from the petitioner's rice-mill were sold and the sale proceeds were deposited to the credit of District Revenue Officer, Madurai. The petitioner filed a claim application before him raising objection for the said seizure. 7. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P.(md).No.13733 of 2011, challenging the above seizure and for return of the paddy as well as rice to him. The petitioner filed a claim application before him raising objection for the said seizure. 7. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P.(md).No.13733 of 2011, challenging the above seizure and for return of the paddy as well as rice to him. While the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act was still pending before the District Revenue Officer, the Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Madurai, initiated proceedings for recovering the value of the paddy supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner resisted the same by stating that the paddy as well as rice were all seized by the District Supply Officer under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act erroneously. Despite the same, the Bank Guarantee submitted by the petitioner was sought to be invoked by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. At that time, the petitioner challenged the order communicated to the petitioner and the other order communicated to the Bank by filing two writ petitions viz., WP. (md).Nos.13734 of 2011 and 12768 of 2011. The petitioner also filed yet another writ petition in W.P.(md).No.12767 of 2011, seeking mandamus to the District Revenue Officer to credit the sale proceeds of the paddy and rice seized, into his account. 8. All the above writ petitions were heard together. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the revenue officials and the learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and I have also perused the records carefully. 9. It is today brought to my notice that in the proceedings initiated under Section 6-A of the Act, the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.93051/2010/ F.bgh.7, dated 26.02.2014 has held that paddy and rice seized from the rice-mill of the petitioner have not been proved to be that of the paddy and rice meant for Public Distribution System and accordingly, the District Revenue Officer has given a clean chit to the petitioner and the other persons connected to the petitioner's mill. He has also ordered for the return of the value of the paddy and rice. He has also ordered for the return of the value of the paddy and rice. In view of the said order passed, the learned counsel would submit that there may be a direction issued to the District Revenue Officer, Madurai to refund the sale proceeds of the paddy and rice to the Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Madurai and thus, the petitioner may be relieved from the liability to pay any amount to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Madurai would submit that such a direction may be issued to the District Revenue Officer, to refund the amount to the Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Madurai and if the amount is so paid, the petitioner will be relieved of from his liability and consequential order will be passed by the Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Madurai. The said statement is recorded. 11. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai has not filed any counter sofar. It is not explained to the Court as to why proceedings initiated in the year 2010 was kept pending for four years without passing any orders. Because of the inaction for such a long time, on the part of the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, the petitioner has been obviously put to lot of hardships, in filing four writ petitions before this Court. The valuable time of the Court has also been wasted. It is not known under what basis and under what materials, it was suspected that the paddy and rice kept in the rice-mill of the petitioner was meant for Public Distribution System. It appears that in a very casual manner, the paddy and rice were seized and the proceedings was kept pending for four years, for which there is absolutely no reason assigned. Therefore, the District Revenue Officer is liable to bear the cost. In my considered view, directing the District Revenue Officer, Madurai to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost shall meet the ends of justice. The same shall be paid by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai to the “Orphanage account of the District Welfare Officer, Madurai District, Collectorate Building, Madurai”, within a period of eight weeks from today. 12. In my considered view, directing the District Revenue Officer, Madurai to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost shall meet the ends of justice. The same shall be paid by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai to the “Orphanage account of the District Welfare Officer, Madurai District, Collectorate Building, Madurai”, within a period of eight weeks from today. 12. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms: i) The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, shall refund the sale proceeds of the paddy and rice seized from the petitioner's rice-mill, in pursuance of the release order passed by him, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.93051/2010/ F.bgh.7, dated 26.02.2014 to the Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Madurai within a period of 8 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 6% from 19.12.2010. ii) On refund of the said amount to the Senior Regional Manager, the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Madurai, the Senior Regional Manager shall pass a consequential order relieving the petitioner from all liability in connection with above transaction within a period of eight weeks. iii) The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the credit of “Orphanage account of the District Welfare Officer, Madurai District, Collectorate Building, Madurai”, within a period of eight weeks from today. Consequently, connected M.P.(md).Nos.1, 1, 1 & 1 of 2011 are closed. No costs.