JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This Writ Petition involves a challenge to the order of confiscation dated 4.09.2006 passed by the Authorized Officer vide Annexure-8. 2. Short background involved in this case is that the petitioner is a lady and is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.OR 05 P-9585 (TATA 407 Model Mini-truck). Averments made in this petition discloses that the petitioner has purchased the vehicle in the year 2003 availing loan from ICICI Bank for an amount of Rs.3,72,000/-. This vehicle was seized by the Jagatpur Police on 23.05.2003 at about 10.45 a.m. Based on which a case was registered vide Jagatpur P.S. Case No.46 dated 23.05.2003 on the allegation of commission of offence U/s.3 of the Orissa Electric Supply line Material (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1988 hereinafter in short be referred as “The Act, 1988”. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the Driver of the vehicle and the Criminal Case vide G.R. Case No.236 of 2003. Petitioner made desperate attempt for release of the vehicle by filing a petition U/s.457 of Cr.P.C. but the J.M.F.C., Salipur rejected such prayer. Petitioner again approached the learned District & Sessions Judge, Cuttack by filing a Crl. Revision against the said order, but the learned District & Sessions Judge, Cuttack took similar view. Thereafter the petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing No.8973 of 2003 before this Court and this Writ Petition was ultimately dismissed by this Court on 13.11.2003, but however with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Authorized Officer and file show cause for expeditious disposal of the confiscation proceeding. Pleadings further disclose that in spite of the petitioner’s filing show cause the matter could not be disposed of and as there was delay in releasing of the vehicle petitioner was constrained to file another Writ Petition bearing No.1665 of 2004, which matter was allowed however directing interim release of the vehicle and further directing disposal of the confiscation proceeding. For delay in disposal of such proceeding petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition bearing No.4819 of 2005, which was disposed of by this Court on 12.04.2005 thereby while recording the submission of the petitioner that she has not taken custody of the vehicle and the vehicle was laying in the Jagatpur Police Station, this Court further directed the Authorized Officer to dispose of the Confiscation Proceeding. In the meantime the Confiscation Proceeding having gone against the petitioner as per the order vide Annexure-8, the petitioner filed present writ petition seeking setting aside of the order vide Annexure-8. 3. Looking to the plea of the petitioner in her show cause challenging the initiation of the confiscation proceeding at Annexure-7(series), it appears, although the petitioner has denied to have any involvement with the alleged offence but however contended that the seized materials are not the electric supply line materials. It is alleged that in the show cause notice the seized materials has been mentioned as Aluminum Conductors. Taking aid of the provision from the Act, 1988, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to justify that in the Act, 1988 nowhere cut pieces of the Aluminum Conductors has been suggested to be electric supply line materials and possession of such materials has been declared to be unlawful. Petitioner while submitting that she has been made a victim for no fault of her, claimed that there has been illegal put to pecuniary loss, which cannot be compensated by award of money. 4. Shri R. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner taking cue from the plea of the petitioner in the show cause, the materials by way of evidence and further taking help of the provision at Section 2(c) read with Section 6(3) & 7 of the Act, 1988 attempted to claim that there has been illegal consideration of the case of the petitioner by the Authorized Officer and thus prayed this Court for interfering with the impugned order vide Annexure-8 and setting aside the same. For introduction of Electricity Act, 2003, Shri R. Roy, learned counsel claimed that the Act, 1988 was no more available and thus claimed that the proceeding being undertaken under the repealing Act, the entire proceeding also otherwise vitiates. 5. Shri D. Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, taking this Court to the discussions and the observations of the Authorized Officer made in the impugned order submitted that there is no contravention of any legal provision in undertaking the confiscation exercise. 5. Shri D. Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, taking this Court to the discussions and the observations of the Authorized Officer made in the impugned order submitted that there is no contravention of any legal provision in undertaking the confiscation exercise. Shri D. Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party also submitted that for the clear materials available therein entangling the petitioner with the charges and the petitioner having failed to establish her case through the provisions of law, it appears, there has been appropriate consideration of the issue involved by the Authorized Officer thereby requiring no interference in the impugned order. Shri D. Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party also taking this Court to the provision at Section 8 of the Act, 1988 contended that may be at the relevant point of time there was no appellate authority available but subsequently, there is availability of appellate authority, who in the meantime is undertaking the appeal exercise. It is, thus contended that the present writ petition is also otherwise not maintainable for avoidance of the statutory appeal provision. Shri D. Ray, learned counsel further submitted that for the ample materials disclosing that there is seizure of electrical line materials, some discrepancy here and there in mentioning the seized items cannot put the petitioner to such advantage. 6. Taking into consideration the submission of Shri Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner that the seizure of the materials made on 23.05.2003, show cause notice being issued on 21.08.2003 and for the amended Electricity Act, 2003 coming into force on 10.06.2003, the Act, 1988 deem to have been repealed by necessary implication, Shri Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party further submitted that the confiscation proceeding being undertaken in exercise of the existing provisions under the Act, 1988, cannot be termed to be bad in law. 7. Before proceeding to decide on merit, this Court taking into consideration the applicability of decision in the case of Debendra Kumar Sahoo Vs. 7. Before proceeding to decide on merit, this Court taking into consideration the applicability of decision in the case of Debendra Kumar Sahoo Vs. S.E.-cum-Authorized Officer as reported in 2012 (II) ILR CUT 349 to case at hand and taking into consideration the above finds, the case cited at Bar involves an occurrence taking place on 21.08.2003 i.e. after bringing into force the Electricity Act, 2003 on 10.06.2003, whereas the case at hand and the materials clearly disclose the occurrence involved in the confiscation proceeding took place on 23.05.2003, based on which the confiscation proceeding was initiated with the occurrence date being 23.05.2003 and the Electricity Act having come into operation since 10.06.2003 the provisions under the Orissa Electric Supply Line Material (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1988 was very much prevailing at the time of occurrence and has the clear application to the case at hand. Therefore, there is no application of the decision cited at Bar to the case at hand. This Court finds no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner so far it relates to the above citation. 8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and looking to the background involving the case that admittedly the vehicle was seized alongwith the materials as per the seizure list belongs to the petitioner, as clearly disclosed in paragraph no.2 of the Writ Petition, it is observed that three of the previous litigations by the petitioner in this Court, W.P.(C) No.8973 of 2003 involving non-release of the vehicle by the Criminal Court, which has been dismissed, similarly the other Writ Petition bearing No.1665 of 2004 involving release of the vehicle and as a matter of interim direction and following the direction contained in W.P.(C) No.8973 of 2003, W.P.(C) No.1665 of 2004 has been allowed with a direction for interim release of the vehicle with specific terms and conditions therein and directing the Authorized Officer to dispose of the Confiscation Proceeding within the time frame. For non-disposal of the Confiscation Proceeding within the time framed, the Writ Petition bearing No.4819 of 2005 was filed, which writ petition was again disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court with a direction to conclude the proceeding within the targeted time therein and it is here, this Court finds, the petitioner moved a 4th Writ Petition bearing No.7599 of 2005 seeking a declaration for declaring the order of confiscation dated 12.5.2005 vide Annexure-6 therein as bad, where this Court set aside the order of confiscation dated 12.5.2005 vide its order dated 19.7.2006 and remanded the matter to the Authorized Officer for re-disposal of the confiscation proceeding. 9. In the above background of the matter, this Court now proceeds to decide as to whether the order of confiscation by the Authorized Officer vide Annexure-8 is passed in accordance with law and in satisfaction with the materials available on record. The objection of the petitioner is that the seizure of the items did not satisfy the provision at Section 2(c) of the Act, 1988. Therefore, the provision at Section 2(c) of the Act, 1988 reads follows: “(c) “Electric Supply-Line Material” means- (i) ACC (All Aluminum Conductor): (ii) ACSR (Steel Cored, Aluminum Conductor): (iii) High Voltage Cable. 11 K.V. and above; (iv) Insulator, 11 K.V. and above (v) Lighting Arrester, 11 K.V. and above; (vi) Support for Electric Supply-Line and part thereof: or (vii) Transformer belonging to Government or Board, but shall not be include- (1) PVC Cable (Service connection); (2) PVC Cable (Domestic wiring):” 10. Material available discloses that the Sub-Inspector of Police received credible information over telephone about the illegal possession of the Aluminum Conductors in a Mini Truck inside the premises of M/s. Laxmi Industry located at New Industrial Estate, Phase-II, Jagatpur and thereafter, the Sub-Inspector alongwith the Constable reached the spot, while conducting search inside the said premises detected one TATA 407 Model Mini-truck bearing registration No.OR 05 P-9585 which was parked on the Western side of the Industry found seized materials loaded in it. There they detected the vehicle carrying cut pieces of Aluminum Conductors, kept inside the gunny bag. In the inquiry it also revealed that the seized materials were brought to that place on the instruction of the owner-cum-proprietor of the establishment Shri Subash Dutta. On seizure of the vehicle a criminal case U/s.7 of the Act was initiated against the petitioner. There they detected the vehicle carrying cut pieces of Aluminum Conductors, kept inside the gunny bag. In the inquiry it also revealed that the seized materials were brought to that place on the instruction of the owner-cum-proprietor of the establishment Shri Subash Dutta. On seizure of the vehicle a criminal case U/s.7 of the Act was initiated against the petitioner. Considering that the owner of the vehicle was the present petitioner, proceeding at hand was continued involving the petitioner. On scrutiny of the materials available on record taking into account the provision of law at Section 2(c) of the Act, 1988 not only it appears, the petitioner has failed in establishing that the seizure list did not attract the provision of Section 2(c) of the Act, 1988 thereby initiating a proceeding U/s.7 is inappropriate, on the other hand, the Confiscation Authority found the seized materials very much attracting the provision at Section 2(c) of the Act, 1988 and a proceeding U/s.7 was also rightly initiated, which proceeding has also been concluded providing opportunity of satisfaction to the party likely to be affected. In such view of the matter and for the petitioner’s failing to establish her case in her favour, remedy of appeal though available making the Writ Petition not maintainable as claimed by the learned counsel for the opposite party, this Court observes, as this matter has been entertained since 2006 and pending in this Court since long, it may not be appropriate at this stage to ask the petitioner to avail the appeal remedy U/s.8 of the Act, 1988, instead of disposing of this matter on merit. 11. For the disclosures and the finding of the Authorized Officer involving the confiscation proceeding and for the findings on clear violation of provisions of the Act, 1988, further for the observations of this Court made hereinabove, this Court finds, there is no infirmity in the impugned order requiring to interfere with the impugned order. 12. The Writ Petition stands dismissed with vacation of the interim order dated 27.11.2006 passed in Misc. Case No.13327 of 2006. Parties to bear their own cost.