JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the vehicle bearing the registration No.TN-29-BH-1639 Bolero Pick Up to the petitioner.) 1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus, seeking for a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.TN-29-BH-1639 Bolero Pick Up to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, his vehicle was seized by the second respondent on 27.04.2022 alleging 60 bags of rice was illegally transported. Immediately after the seizure of his vehicle by the second respondent, the petitioner has given a representation dated 27.04.2022 with the second respondent requesting the second respondent to return the seized vehicle back to him. Since the second respondent has not passed any final orders, till date, he is constrained to file this writ petition. 3. Heard Mr.A.E. Kalaiselvan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 4. At the outset, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent relies upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies, etc., & another V. S. Damodaran reported in 2008 1 LW 1020 and would submit that the Division Bench has categorically held in paragraph No.13, which reads as follows:- 13. In the facts and circumstances, while this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 1.3.06 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.5831 of 2006, observe as follows:- a) In case any essential commodity or any commodity, package, vehicle, animal, etc., is seized or confiscated and the person from whom such commodity or vehicle is seized, or the owner of the commodity or vehicle intends to get an order for release of the commodity or vehicle, they should first avail the alternative remedy before the competent authority for release of such commodity or vehicle for the grounds and reasons as may be taken by the aggrieved persons; b) In case such application for release of the commodity, package or vehicle is filed, the competent authority / appellate authority will dispose of the application immediately, preferably within a week. In case of any adverse decision, the ground should be communicated to the applicant; c) Only when the competent authority / appellate authority fail to discharge their duty, the concerned person may move straight away before the High Court under Article 226, but generally it should be reluctant to grant such relief if the party fails to take recourse to alternative remedy. 5. Therefore according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioner will have to first approach the first respondent and only if his application has not been considered expeditiously, he has the right to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions would now submit that since the petitioner has already submitted a representation on 27.04.2022 before the second respondent seeking for release of the subject vehicle, a direction can be issued to the respondents to pass final orders, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 7. Since the second respondent is not the competent authority to consider the petitioner's application, the petitioner will have to give a fresh application to the first respondent. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the petitioner to file an application seeking for release of the vehicle before the first respondent, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said application, the first respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.