Writ petition can be filed only after exhausting alternative remedies.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

Learned single Judge, by impugned order dated 3. 06 passed in W.P. No.5831/06, having directed to release the vehicle in question (mini van bearing Registration No. TN-21-E-4993) on certain conditions, the present appeal has been preferred by the authorities of the State against such order.

2. The only plea taken is that the impugned order dated 3. 06 was passed without giving opportunity to the appellants, who were the respondents in the writ petition and without taking into consideration the relevant facts and merits of the case.

3. The impugned order dated 3. 06 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.5831/06 reads as follows: -

"The petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to release the mini van bearing Registration No.TN-21-E-4993 seized on 25.01.2006 by the second respondent at No.104, Kandasami Koil Street, Kosapet, Chennai 600 012 to the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the seized vehicle and the same is being used as a common carrier.

3. Taking into consideration of the relief prayed for, the first respondent is directed to release the mini van bearing Registration No.TN-21-E-4993 on the petitioner fulfilling the following conditions:

.(i) The petitioner shall establish the ownership of the vehicle by producing necessary certificate before the first respondent;

.(ii) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in any manner till adjudication is over;

(iii) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousand only) by way of cash with the first respondent; and

(iv) The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future and also to produce the vehicle as and when required by the first respondent.

4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs."

4. From the aforesaid impugned order it is apparent that the learned single Judge passed the order simply on the basis of the prayer as was made by the respondent/writ petitioner and it is not a reasoned or speaking order.

5. The only question required to be determined in this case is whether the impugned order dated 3. 06 requires any interference in this appeal.

6. It is not in dispute that the competent authority is invested with power to seize and confiscate essential commodity, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act). Any animal, vehicle, vessel or any other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity could also be seized under subclause (c) of Section 6-A, which reads as follows :-

"6-A. Confiscation of essential commodity. -(1) Where any [essential commodity is seized] in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, [a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to] the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such [essential commodity is seized] and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector [may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied] that there has been a contravention of the order [ may order confiscation of --

(a)****

(b)****

(c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity:]"

.7. Under Section 6-B, the competent authority is bound to issue show cause notice to the owner of such commodity, package or vehicle before confiscation. A remedy by way of appeal is prescribed under Section 6-C, as quoted hereunder:-

."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 [the State Government concerned and the State Government] shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit, confirmi