The independent nature of proceedings for confiscation of essential commodities and the requirement of providing a notice in writing informing the owner of the grounds for proposed confiscation, as mandated by Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

R. G. avachat, J. - The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 31.03.2010, passed by the learned additional Collector, Nandurbar under Section 6-a of the Essential Commodities act, 1955 (for short, 'EC' act) and partially modified by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar vide its order dated 01.03.2012, passed in Criminal appeal No.4 of 2010.

2. The petitioner runs a fair price shop. He also holds a license/permit as a Sugar Nominee. He is also the Chairman of Bhushan Sevabhavi Cooperative Society, Nandurbar, which runs a fair price shop.

3. The District Supply Officer (D.S.O.), Tahsildar, Nandurbar accompanied by some revenue officials, paid surprise visit to the godown and shops. During inspection, it was found that food-grains, namely, wheat, rice, sugar and pulse, were found in excess of the quantity supplied to the petitioner for being distributed to the fair price card-holders. It was further found that the food-grains were either not supplied/distributed to some of the cardholders and/or supplied less than the required quantity. The food-grains, therefore, came to be seized. The petitioner was called upon to explain the deficiencies in the record. The petitioner failed to offer any explanation or come clean within a reasonable time. The additional Collector, therefore, issued him a notice to show cause as to why the stock of food-grains (quantified in the notice) be not forfeited.

4. The petitioner gave his reply in writing on 17.04.2010. The learned additional Collector, after having considered the reply given by the petitioner and on hearing him as well, passed the order of confiscation of the food-grains, such as, 30 quintal wheat, 75 quantal rice, 7 quintal pulse (toor dal) and 19 quintal sugar. It was also directed that 145 quantal sugar, though was released, to be distributed by the Tahsildar to the fair price shop owners.

5. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal, being Criminal appeal No.4 of 2010. The learned additional Sessions Judge, upheld the order passed by the additional Collector, except the order in relation to 143 quintals of sugar.

6. Heard.

The learned Senior advocate would submit that the petitioner has been acquitted of a criminal charge. a certified copy of judgment and order dated 16.01.2015 passed in Criminal appeal No. 2 of 2014 has been placed on record. according to him, the license of the petitioner to run fair price shop has been renewed. The learned Senior advocate meant to say that the fair price shop license of the petitioner has not been cancelled. according to him, the notice issued under Section 6-B of the EC act, does not contain what action was proposed against the petitioner. In short, according to the learned Senior advocate, the notice to show cause, is bad in law and therefore, action taken pursuant to the show cause notice must fail. In support of his contentions the learned advocate has relied on the following authorities:

(i) Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others (2014) 9 SCC 105;

(ii) Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2021) 1 SCC 804.

7. The learned aPP would, on the other hand, submit for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the material relied on. Since it being a petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, no factual matrix could be gone into. The learned Senior advocate has even not adverted to the factual matrix.

It is however to be stated that both the authorities below, namely, additional Collector and the appellate Court as well, on appreciation of the factual matrix, held the petitioner to have failed to explain the grounds averred in the show cause notice for confiscation of the food-grains (essential commodities).

9. True, the petitioner has been acquitted of a criminal charge. a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 16. 01.2015, passed in Criminal appeal No.2 of 2014, has been placed on record. Para 9 the