ROACK FERNANDO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.V.Kathirvelu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that it is open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him, by filing an appeal before the concerned District Court, under Section 6(4) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, challenging the impugned order, dated 10.08.2010, passed by the second respondent. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not refuted the said submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) In view of the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal, before the concerned authority, invoking the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in the manner known to law, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.