T R RAMAIAH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the preliminary hearing stage, we directed the, learned High Court Govt. Advocate to take notice, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel on both sides the matter was finally heard today, as it is of some urgency. The appeal is directed against the order of Jagarmatha, Shetty, J. dt.8-4-1974, made in WP.1264 of 1974, dismissing the appellants' writ petition at the preliminary hearing stage on the ground, that they have an adequate alternate remedy by way of appeal. The question is whether the learned Judge was right in declining to, exercise his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The matter arises in this way: On 18-12-1973, the Tahsildar of Hiriyur inspected the rice mill belonging to the second respondent and seized 2307 bags of paddy in exercise of the powers vested under the Essential Commodities Act, 1965, hereinafter called the Act. The Dy.Commr., Chitradurga, who is the authority empowered under the Act to adjudicate confiscation, issued notice to the second respondent to show cause why the paddy seized should" not be confiscated. In response to the said notice, the second respondent submitted in writing that 1044 bags out of 2307 bags of paddy seized, belonged to, the appellants and disclaimed ownership in respect of the said stock. The second respondent further submitted before the, first respondent that the paddy in question had been delivered tp the mill by the appellants for the purpose of hulling. The first respondent without issuing notice to the appellants to show cause and affording them thereby an opportunity to make their representations passed the order of confiscation of the paddy claimed by them. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants preferred WP. 1264174 in this Court, and, when the matter came up for preliminary hearing before Jagannatha Shetty, J., it was dismissed on the ground, that the Act provides an adequate alternate remedy by way of. appeal and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the above appeal.

(3.) It is settled law that there is no rule with regard to certionari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. The rule requiring the exhaustion off statutory remedies before the writ may be, granted, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion, rather than a rule of law. The High Court will reradily issue a certiorari in a case where there has been a denial of natural justice before a Court of summary jurisdiction, vide, State of UP. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 88 and Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, AIR. 1961 SC. 1506 .