The group matters are heard together and decided finally. The petitioners and revision applicants are dealing with the commodities including rice, pulses, spices. They possess requisite licences issued by Food and Supply Department (respondent) under the rules. On 21st July, 2012, the officers of Rationing Department and Civil Supply visited the warehouses in Vashi, New Mumbai. It revealed that the petitioners, as traders had changed the warehouses from the one which was permitted under the licence condition. It was expected under the conditions of Licence in Form C at Clause 2 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Wholesale Dealers' Licensing Order, 1998, to have communicated such change within 48 hours. However, change in the place of storage/warehouse was not communicated. Hence, prosecution under Section 6 of Essential Commodities Act including confiscation of seized pulses, rice, grains. The order of confiscation was challenged in appeal under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. However, the appeal was dismissed and hence, the writ petition.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners criticised conduct of the respondent/department in raiding the warehouses, discriminating few of other traders by releasing their goods viz. Rice, pulses, food-grains and targeting in prosecuting the petitioners. The other grievance is, first visit was dated 21.7.2012 while before second visit, there was already a communication of change in place of storage (warehouse). In the light of such communication, subsequent order of confiscation would not be maintainable. It was also pointed out that in few cases, the commodities being spices (yellow rai) is not covered under the Essential Commodities. It does not require licence. Yellow Masoor (Pulse) was imported, it does not require licence.

3. It was pointed out that there were no notices in terms of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act as the notice was issued to warehouse owner and not to the petitioners. In the absence of such notice, there could not be directions under Section 6-B of the said Act, of confiscation.

4. By now, it is not in dispute that rice stock of around thirty eight traders has been released while in the matter of twenty nine such traders confiscation order is passed. Twenty five had approached this Court. The learned APP says that the cases of released traders were based on individual merits as they had communicated within a span of 48 hours about change in the godown/warehouse. He has placed reliance to the judgment of this Court reported in "2011(3) Bom.CR (Cri) 205 : [2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3002) (State of Maharashtra Vs. Jayantilal Laxmichand & Sons)". The case before this Court was, storage of pulses, rice were in warehouse, without notification within 48 hours after storing the goods at different places. It was primarily established by State that the procedure under Sections 6-A and 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act was followed before passing order of confiscation. This Court permitted restoration of commodities/ confiscated stock to owners on payment of value.

5. This Court in Criminal Revision Application no.205 of 2013 and 194 of 2011, on July 4, 2013, on the statement made by respective Counsel, allowed release of confiscated goods on the condition that respondents therein pays to the Department Controller of Rationing present market price of the goods seized in wholesale market.

6. On perusal of record and proceedings of the present cases, it is found that notice under Section 6A of the Act as amended in the State of Maharashtra was not issued to the respective petitioners but the notice was issued to the warehouse owners. Section 6A after amendment in Maharashtra State reads as under:

"6A: Confiscation of seized commodities.

(I) Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, a report to that effect shall, withou