SATYANARAYAN AGARWALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is directed against the confirming appellate order of learned Sessions Judge of Cuttack upholding confiscation directed by the Collector and District Magistrate of Cuttack in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955.

(2.) PETITIONER carries on business in oil seeds on wholesale basis in Malgodown area of Cuttack. On the allegation that there had been contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Essential Food Stuffs (Prevention of Hoarding and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1974, as also Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973, certain quantities of ground -nut seed and ground -nut oil had been seized from the petitioner's premises. A notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of confiscation may not be made. In the notice in Miscellaneous Case No. 16 of 1975, particulars were not provided except that in the schedule, the two items proposed to be confiscated had been specified. Cause was shown on 2.8.1975. On 8.8.1975, petitioner's advocate was heard and after four adjournments, on 22.9.1975, the order of confiscation followed. An appeal had been carried, where no interference was caused. In these circumstances, confiscation is assailed in this revision.

(3.) COMING to the merit of the matter, as I have already indicated in a recent decision in the case of M/s. Geneswar Sahu and Brother v. State of Orissa (1977) 43 Cut LT 88, an appropriate opportunity has to be given to the person affected and that opportunity would not be issuing a notice in a bald form as in this case. All details should be provided, the circumstances of seizure should be indicated and the petitioner should be given an opportunity of really giving an appropriate explanation against the proposed action. The scheme of the statute is such that even if evidence is offered, it has to be taken. In the present case, nothing of that type seems to have been done. It is true, as pointed out by learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioner had the opportunity of an appeal, but as I find, these aspects have not been taken into account. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Mohanty for the petitioner that for the infirmities referred to above, the order of confiscation should not be sustained. I would accordingly quash it. It would still be open to the prescribed authority under Section 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act to exercise his jurisdiction by complying with the requirements of the law. The revision application in the circumstances is allowed. Petition allowed.