5. Shri D. Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, taking this Court to the discussions and the observations of the Authorized Officer made in the impugned order submitted that there is no contravention of any legal provision in undertaking the confiscation exercise. Shri D. Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party also submitted that for the clear materials available therein entangling the petitioner with the charges and the petitioner having failed to establish her case through the provisions of law, it appears, there has been appropriate consideration of the issue involved by the Authorized Officer thereby requiring no interference in the impugned order. Shri D. Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party also taking this Court to the provision at Section 8 of the Act, 1988 contended that may be at the relevant point of time there was no appellate authority available but subsequently, there is availability of appellate authority, who in the meantime is undertaking the appeal exercise. It is, thus contended that the present writ petition is also otherwise not maintainable for avoidance of the statutory appeal provision. Shri D. Ray, learned counsel further submitted that for the ample materials disclosing that there is seizure of electrical line materials, some discrepancy here and there in mentioning the seized items cannot put the petitioner to such advantage.
