The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is not affected by Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to order the confiscation of essential commodities seized under Section 6A of the Act.

A. M. Bhattacharjee, J. :- Our jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution can be taken away or otherwise affected only by or under the authority of the Constitution and not by any legislation whatsoever without such authority. That is why the provisions of Article 323A and Article 323B constituting Part XIV-A of the Constitution had to be inserted by way of Constitutional Amendment in 1976 to enable Parliament and other Legislatures to exclude our Constitutional Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in respect of matters to be adjudicated or tried by Tribunals to be constituted pursuant to the provisions of those Articles. When the paramount law of the land has conferred a jurisdiction, no other law can alter, circumscribe or take its way save under the express authority of that paramount law.

2. In this Court, there does not appear to be any appreciable difference of opinion as to the Collector being otherwise amenable to our superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 while discharging his functions under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in ordering confiscation of the essential commodities seized in pursuance of an Order made under Section 3 of the Act. But the cleavage of opinion appears to centre round the question as to whether section 6-E, in providing that in respect of any essential commodity seised, "the Collector ....... shall have, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any Court, tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity........", has also excluded the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227.

3. A learned single Judge of this Court in Prodyot Kumar Das Mondal (1986 Criminal Law Journal 1206) appears-to be categorical that the expression "any Court, tribunal or other authority" in Section 6-E cannot but include the High Court also even in its jurisdiction under Article 227. Another learned single Judge in Kalachand Saha (1987 Criminal Law Journal 1375) is also equally assertive in holding that those provisions annot affect the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 in any way. With respect, we agree with the view in Kalachand Saha (supra) and disent, with equal respect, from the view in Prodvot Kumar Das Mondal (supra) and we are inclined to think that the earlier Division Bench decision in Swadeshi Sugar Supplies (1980-1 Calcutta High Court Notes 338) goes a long way to lend assurance to the view we propose to take. We have no manner of doubt that out Constitutional Jursidiction under Art. 227 is far beyond the reach of S.6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, notwithstanding the purported broad sweep and apparent amplitude of its provisions and would accordingly survive, with all its magnitude all such legislative onaslaughts.

4. But as we have very often said, borrowing from Shakespears, it is good to have giant's power, but not to use it as a giant. The wide arch and extent of our Constitutional Jurisdiction may be gigantic, but the exercise thereof must not be giant-like.

5. In the case at hand, at the criminal trial preceding the impugned order of confiscation by the Collector, the Judge, Special Court, though finding the petitioner guilty and sentencing him to imprisonment, directed the siezed goods to be returned to the petitioner, as in his view the offence was a "technical" one. It is difficult to understand as to how the Judge could do so with S. 7(1)(b) staring at the face and mandating that "any property in respect of which the Order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Government". The learned Judge thought that since there was no discrepancy between the actual stock and the entries in the Register and failure to display the stock and the prices on a board or list as required under the Order would not make the articles or the commo