The principles of natural justice require that a person whose right to property is being affected be given an opportunity to be heard before an order is made that affects their property.

P.C. Borooah, J.

In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution, moved with notice to the State, the petitioners have impugned the validity of two order dated 21.12.79 and 14.2.80 passed by Sri C.R. Gautam, Additional District Magistrate, Howrah in connection with Howrah police Station Case No. 33 dated 18.12.79.

2. On December 18, 1979 the District Enforcement Branch, Howrah seized 140 bags of sugar weighing approximately 140 quintals from the possession of one Sriram Agarwala if 61, Chintamani Dey Road, Howrah: consequent to such seizure Howrah Police Station Case No. 33 dated December 18, 1979 was stated. The said seizure was also reported to the Additional District Magistrate, Howrah (being the Collector) under the Provisions of S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter the Act).

3. On receipt of such report the learned Magistrate by an order dated 21.12.79 started a confiscation proceeding and ordered issue of a notice to Sriram Agarwala under S. 6B of the Act directing him to show cause against confiscation by 2.2.80. He also by the same order, acting purportedly under S. 6A(2) of the Act, directed the seized sugar to be sold by the Investigating Officer to 14 Ration dealers to be selected by the Rationing Officer concerned in view of the fact that sugar was a scarce commodity and also subject to speedy decay.

4. On February 14, 1980 a petition was filed on behalf of the 1st petitioner for release of the seized sugar claiming that the sugar seized from the godown of Sriram Agarwala actually belonged to Swadeshi Sugar Suppliers. The learned Magistrate by an order of the same date rejected the petition holding inter alia, that except for the oral and written submissions, there was no other matrial before him in support of the contention of Swadeshi Sugar Supplies. The learned Magistrate further held that since by his earlier order dated 21.12.1979 he had started a confiscation proceeding under S.6A of the Act, the prayer for release of the sugar to the first petitioners could not be entertained in view of S. 6E of the said Act.

5. Mr. Balai Chandra Roy, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that before the order for sale was made by the learned Magistrate under S. 6A(2) of the Act, the petitioners should have been given an opportunity of being heard, and the denial of such opportunity has resulted in the violation of the principles of natural justice warranting this Court’s interference under Article 227 of Constitution. Mr. Roy further submitted that the observation made by the learned Magistrate in his order dated 14.2.80, viz. that except for the and written submission there was no other material before him in support of the contentions made by the 1st petitioner, is erroneous as a number of documents were produced before the learned Magistrate but the same were not considered by him. In this context, Mr. Roy has referred to the supplementary affidavit filed by the 2nd petitioner Bijay Kumar Kalanoria on behalf of himself and the 1st petitioner. Annexure “A” to the said affidavit enumerates the documents which were said to have been produced before the collector on 14.2.80.

6. Mr. Mitra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has firstly submitted that in as much as a confiscation proceeding had been started by the learned Magistrate under S. 6A of the Act, this Court’s jurisdiction to entertain any application, even under Article 227 of the Constitution, is clearly barred in view of S.6E of the Act. Mr. Mitra then contended that even assuming that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present application, even then we should not interfere in the instant case, because the power giving to be Collector under S. 6A(2) of the Act to direct the sale of any seized essential commodity is independent of the starting of any confiscation proceeding under S. 6A(1) of the Act. As such, according to Mr. Mitra, an order for sale may be made under S. 6A(2