The second petitioner is the proprietor of wholesale dealer under Food Grain Licence bearing FGL No.1/PKL/2000. Her nephew is the first petitioner in charge of the shop. On 22.01.2001 at 3.50 p.m., third respondent surprised the shop. Under a Panchanama he seized 392 bags (50 kg each) of raw rice and nine bags (50 kg each) of boiled rice. Based on his report, first respondent framed the following four charges: (1) Petitioners were not in practice of issuing bills to the customers and thereby contravened condition 10 of the Licence issued under APSCD (L&D) Order, 1982 and clause 7(1) of the AP Exhibition of Price Lists of Goods Order, 1966; (2) Petitioners have not submitted Form "C" returns to the Licensing Authority and thereby contravened condition 4 of the licence issued under APSCD (L&D) Order, 1982; (3) Petitioners have not exhibited price lists board and thereby contravened condition 8 of the licence and clause 3 of the AP Exhibition of Price Lists of Goods Order, 1966; and (4) There was a huge variation i.e. 11 bags (51/2 Qtls) of rice, when compared the ground balance with book balance. The respondents did not maintain the accounts properly and thereby contravened condition 3 of the licence, and issued notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act). The second petitioner submitted written statement denying various charges. She alleged that the shop was inspected by the Vigilance authorities in her absence, that her nephew, who is not acquainted with the accounts, did not incorporate in the accounts about the sale of 500 quintals on 22.01.2001, that the same is permissible variation as per Government norms, that the stock board was available, that she was issuing bills regularly and submitting C returns to the Licensing Authority and that all accounts were maintained upto 21.01.2001. The first respondent considering the matter passed orders on 25.11.2002 directing confiscation of 20% of seized stock. Feeling aggrieved by confiscation order, the petitioners preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal No.305 of 2003 under Section 6-C of the Act before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, the second respondent herein. By impugned order, dated 10.09.2007, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

2. It is mainly contended that the decision of appellate Court is contrary to law and that confiscation of 20% of the seized stock is excessive as the charges are trivial in nature. The counter affidavit is filed denying various allegations. The maintainability of a writ petition against the order passed by the inferior criminal Court, namely, District and Sessions Court is also questioned in the counter.

3. The senior counsel for petitioners submits that Sessions Court being inferior criminal Court and a judicial authority, any order passed by the same is subject to revision under Sections 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). He then would urge that the availability of revision remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, especially when a writ of Certiorari can always be issued against the inferior Court or Tribunal. Per contra, the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies places strong reliance on the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Public Prosecutor v Legisetty Ramayya (1) 1975 Cri.L.J. 144 (1) (FB) (A.P) and submits that a writ petition is not maintainable as there is an effective alternative remedy.

4. The point that falls for consideration is whether writ petition is maintainable against the order passed by District and Sessions Court in exercise of its special appellate Jurisdiction conferred under Section 6-C of the Act. Section 6-C of the Act as it stands reads as under.

6-C. Appeal:- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under Section 6-A may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to an