S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J.

1. The petitioner who is the owner of the truck has moved this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 4.10.89 by which the truck of the petitioner has been ordered to be confiscated under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (shortly the E.C. Act), 1955. He has also prayed for quashing the notice dated 27.1.89 initiating a proceeding under the E.C. Act.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. In the written report of the Forest Ranger, Balumath, it was alleged that on receiving the confidential information he apprehended truck No. BHH 645 which was carrying katha for illegal purposes/business. Further allegation is that when the petitioner and the khalasi failed to escape with the truck, started throwing some plastic bags containing katha from the truck. The D.F.C. could not arrest him as the petitioner and the khalasi fled away. The said katha along with the truck were seized. On such allegation being made initially a case under Sec. 414 of the I.P.C. read with Sec. 33 of the Indian Forest Act and under Sec. 7 of the E.C. Act was instituted. However, the Special Judge who was authorised to try the cases under the E.C. Act, on receiving the FIR, held that no case under Sec. 7 of the EC Act was made out and, as such, the same was not triable by him. He transferred the records of the case to the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar for disposal in accordance with law. Notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the truck of the petitioner should not be confiscated. The said notice is Annexure 1. The petitioner came to know about the notice on 4.2.89 and, as such, he could not file his show cause on 6.2.89 for paucity of relevant papers with him. On that date a prayer was made before the Deputy Commissioner for extension of time for filing show cause. However said petition was rejected . Subsequently on 9.2.89 show cause was filed by the petitioner which is Annexure 2/1 to this application.

3. By the impugned order dated 4.3.89 the Deputy Commissioner passed an order for confiscation of the truck of the petitioner and also the katha which was seized by the D.F.O. One of the grounds, it appears, assigned by the Deputy Commissioner in his order was that as no show cause was filed within time, it can be presumed that the petitioner had nothing to say.

4. Mr. V.P. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a simple point in support of his contenting that the notice itself is bad inasmuch as the katha not being the essential commodity, cannot be the subject matter of any confiscation case under any of the provisions of the E.C. Act. secondly, it is contended that the confiscation order does not show as to which particular order has been violated by the petitioner who is only the owner of the truck, a public carrier.

5. Mr., V. Shivnath learned G.P.I. on the other hand, contended that as the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order of confiscation without perusing the show cause filed by the petitioner, the order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh order after considering the show cause filed by the petitioner. Alternatively it is contended that in view of Sec. 2(a)(v) of the E.C. Act katha can be said to be a food stuff and, as such, the order of confiscation cannot be said to be illegal.

6. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the parties, some of the provisions of the Act may be considered Sec. 6-A empowers the Collector to make an order for confiscation where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an Order made under Sec. 3 in relation thereto. This provision clearly indicates that the Collector can exercise his power under this section only when an essential commodity which has been provided for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce by an order of the Central Government, has been seiz