( 1 ) ). THESE two appeals arise out of judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 1st April, 2000 in Special Civil Application no. 5981 of 1999 with Special Civil Application No. 1365 of 2000 and Special civil Application No. 9076 of 2000 (Satish Maganlal Vora v. Union of India, reported in 2001 (3) GLR 2173), rejecting these writ petitions. Both the appeals have been argued together fully and finally by both the sides since they involved common questions and are filed by the same appellant, who had filed these petitions.

( 2 ) ). In Special Civil Application No. 5981 of 1999, the appellant had challenged the validity of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Order of 1998) and seeking a declaration that the petitioners product "patrex" was not covered by the Essential commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and impugned Order of 1998. The appellant also challenged the order dated 3rd June, 1999, at annexure k to that petition passed by the District Supply Officer seizing the goods detailed in the order namely, Patrex branded motor fuel, Methanol, hydrocarbon, Acetone, mixed raw material etc. The appellant also challenged the order dated 25-10-1999, at Annexure l (l) to that petition made under sec. 6-A of the said Act, confirming the order of the District Supply officer and directing that the seized stock of the petitioners proprietary concern m/s. Sonar Petrochem valued at Rs. 10,80,521-00 be confiscated. 2. 1 In Special Civil Application No. 1365 of 2000 which was decided along with Special Civil Application No. 5981 of 1999, from which matters the Letters patent Appeal No. 44 of 2001 has arisen, the appellant while challenging the validity of the impugned Order of 1998 on the ground that it was ultra vires the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, also sought for a direction on the respondents to allot to him a monthly quota of 500 M. T. of Naphtha for manufacture of its product patrex as prayed in his letter dated 5-2-2000 at Annexure m to that petition. He also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000-00 for the alleged mental torture and agony to him by the impugned action of the respondents. 2. 2 In Special Civil Application No. 9076 of 2000 from which the Letters patent Appeal No. 692 of 2000 arises (in the title of which writ petition, the appellant had also mentioned Special Civil Application No. 5981 of 1999, Special civil Application No. 1365 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 1326 of 1998 perhaps because of the overlapping nature of all the petitions, the appellant challenged the seizure order passed by the respondents on 25-2-2000 dated 5-4-2000 and 27-4-2000 at Annexure k collectively to that petition and the confiscation order as per Annexure l to that petition. A declaration was also sought that the impugned Order of 1998 as well as "solvent Raffinate and slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of Use in Automobiles) Order, 2000 (Annexure m to that petition), and again "naphtha (Acquisitions, Sale, storage and Prevention of Use in Automobile) Order, 2000 (Annexure n to that petition) were all ultra vires the provisions of Secs. 3 and 7 of the said act. A direction was sought on the respondents authority to supply to the appellant 5000 Kilo Litres of Naphtha per month for manufacture of his product patrex.

( 3 ) ). The case of the appellant as reflected from his petition (Special Civil application No. 5981 of 1999) is that he is the Managing Director of M/s. Patrex Fuels India Ltd. and a sole proprietor of M/s Sonar Petrochem, and that he had invented a product by mixing Hydrocarbon liquid like Naphtha, methyl Alcohol and additives (trade secret ). According to him, patrex served the purpose of providing motive power to petrol driven vehicles and the same can be used as substitute to normal ordinary petrol s