By these writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the respective petitioners are challenging the orders of confiscation under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 1955 Act) passed by Respondent No.1. The raid in which the illegal hoarding of rice/ Gram was discovered has been conducted by Respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, Warora, on 29.08.2009. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4259 of 2009 and 4362 of 2009 did not possess any licence according to the respondents while remaining four petitioners violated the terms and conditions thereof. The parties have treated Writ Petition No. 4259 of 2009, in which rice is involved, as lead petition.

2. I have heard Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners and S/Shri Khubalkar and Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleaders respectively for the respondents.

3. Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the action under above mentioned 1955 Act is not legally sustainable as rice is not controlled commodity at all. He has invited attention to provisions of Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Whole-Sale Dealers’ Licensing Order, 1998, (hereinafter referred to as 1998 Order), to urge that its clause (2)(x) define Schedule Commodity as one specified in schedule and licence under its clause (3) is required only for such commodity included in the schedule. He has invited attention to said schedule to show that it does not include rice at all. In this background he has also invited attention to guidelines dated 09.05.2008 issued by State Government which show that traders who have applied for licence may be permitted to trade if their applications are found containing some errors or lacunae. He contends that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4259 of 2009 had applied for licence in accordance with law on 16.04.2008 and accordingly the licence was to be issued to him even for the period in dispute. He points out that he had a licence up to 21.12.2008 for other commodities. He had sought licence also to deal with rice mentioning therein that he would be doing business at his establishment located at main road, Warora, as also the godown of Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation. He further pointed out that after that application on 14.08.2009, the department inspected his establishment and examined his records, recorded his statement and submitted a report recommending grant of licence. He was asked to deposit licence fee and security deposit. He was also unwell from 16.08.2009 till 31.08.2009 and could not deposit licence fee or security deposit and in that period on 29.08.2009, rice 88 quintals in quantity belonging to him and stored in godown of Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (State Godown) was seized. According to him, in view of the guidelines mentioned above, such seizure could not have been effected.

4. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Prasad Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand, reported at AIR 2007 SC 2626, to urge that as Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner before confiscation on 04.09.2009 did not point out relevant order or its violation, the order of confiscation is unsustainable. For the same purpose, he has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Government of A.P. & Ors. vs. V. Ranga Rao & Anr., reported at 2005 (12) SCC 274.

5. To meet the contention of the respondents that the petitioners have got alternate remedy of filing appeal under Section 6C of 1955 Act, he points out that the appellate authority has been pointed out for the first time on 15.09.2009 as alleged but that appointment was never communicated to public till date. In any case, according to him, in view of the judgments mentioned above, the alternate remedy is no bar in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court. He has also invited attention to the fact that words “judicial authority” were added in Section 6C(1) by 1981 Amending Act an