The right of appeal is a substantive right and cannot be taken away by a subsequent enactment unless there is a specific provision to that effect.

P.C. Borooah, J. :- The petitioners are the partners of Sree Lakshmi Oil Mill at Kethardanga within the District of Bankura.

2. On 17-12-81 the police raided-the petitioners' firm and seized several qu-intals of mustard seed, mustard oil and oil cake. Pursuant to the seizure a case was instituted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereafter referred to as the Act) for violation of the provisions of para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order 1977 as well as para 3(1) of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978. There-after confiscation proceedings were started before the Magistrate, Bankura, who was the Collector, under the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act, and the Collector by an order dated 30-8-1982 directed confiscation of the seized goods and further ordered that the I.O. would arrange the sale of the goods at a fair price and keep the sale proceeds in deposit in the Trea-sury until further orders.

3. Against the order of the Collector the petitioners preferred an appeal on 6-9-1982 before the District Judge, Bankura who was the judicial authority under the provisions of Section 6-C of the Act. The appeal was numbered as Misc. Appeal No.35 of 1982. The learned Judge, how-ever, by an order dated 25-9-1982 directed the memo of appeal to he returned to the petitioners or their lawyer for being presented to the appropriate appellate auth-ority in view of the provisions of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 which came into force in West Bengal on and from 1-9-1982. The order of the learned Judge dated 25-9-1982 is the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule.

4. Mr. Dilip Kumar Dutt appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that on the day the order of confiscation was passed by the Collector an appeal lay to the District Judge under the pro-visions of Section 6-C of the Act, and this right having accrued to the petitioners, the same could not be taken away by the Amendment Act. In sup-port of his argument Mr. Dutt has refer-red to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry reported in AIR 1957 SC 540 and also to a decision of the Cal-cutta High Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Pasuari v. Corporation of Calcutta reported in (1977) 4 Cal HC (N) 109 : (1977 Cri LJ NOC 177) where the derision of the Supreme Court was also referred to.

5. Mr. Sudipto Moitra appearing on behalf of the State has, however, con-tended that under the proviso to S.2 of the Act Ss.7 to 11 of the Act would not apply to or in relation to any offence under the principal Act committed before the commencement of the Act and the provisions of the principal Act shall apply to and in relation to such an offence as if those amendments have not been made. The proviso, according to Mr. Moitra, makes it clear that if it was the intention of the legislature that the amendment of S.6-C would not apply to pending appeals, such a provision would certainly have been inserted in the Amending Act.

6. The day, namely, on 30-8-1982 when the order of confiscation was passed by the Collector, the petitioners had a right of appeal to the District Judge. This right undoubtedly continued till 2-9-1982 when the Amending Act came into force and by virtue of S.5 thereof appeals lay to the State Government concerned from the orders passed by the Collector. The question is whether S.5 of the Amend-ing Act, by virtue of which the appel-late authority became the State Govern-ment affect the pending appeals or would affect the case of aggrieved per-sons whose right of appeal had accrued before coming into force, of the Amend-ing Act?

7. An appeal to the District Judge is certainly more advantageous than an appeal to the State Government because after all a Collector is also an organ of the executive. The petitioners had a right of appeal to the District Judge on the day the