IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed the importance of following procedural safeguards in administrative actions under the Essential Commodities Act, particularly the necessity of notice and opportunity to be heard before confiscation.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J.

The Petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petition praying therein to quash the Order dated 05.09.2014 (Annexure-1) passed by the Collector, Nayagarh in E.C. Case No.2 of 2014 under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, shortly herein after referred to as 'the Act', with a further prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to return the confiscated articles i.e. paddy crops amounting to Q. 142.58 KG (204 jari bags).

2. The case of the Petitioners is that, on 17.02.2014 at night, one Gobinda Chandra Champati, who was the owner of the truck bearing No.OD-02J-2720, sent his vehicle with loaded brinjals to Berhampur. When the said truck was returning on the next date i.e. 18.02.2014 morning, after unloading the brinjals, the Petitioner No.1, who was a farmer, along with other co-villagers/farmers, the present Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, approached the driver of the said vehicle to carry their paddy bags to the Rice Mill of M/s Subhalaxmi Agencies Pvt. Ltd., at Sunakhala for milling of their paddy. On being so approached, the driver of the vehicle agreed to bring the paddy to the said Rice Mill. But, on the way, at Village Khatia, the Officer In-Charge (OIC), Sarankul Police Station, without any authority detained the said truck and paddy and kept it inside the premises of Sarankul Police Station.

When the OIC detained the truck, the Petitioners informed him that they were carrying their paddy bags to the mill of the said agency at Sunakhala for milling their paddy. The OIC, Sarankul, did not give any heed to the same and asked the driver Sri Gobinda Chandra Champati to move the vehicle to Sarankul Police Station for further investigation of the case.

Thereafter, on the next day i.e. 19.02.2014, the Marketing Inspector, Odagaon Block seized the said paddy bags on apprehension of purchase of the same from the farmers at below minimum price, illegally and without any enquiry sent same for confiscation.

The case of the Petitioners is that the Opposite Party No.2 presumed that the driver of the said vehicle has illegally transported the paddy from Village Damasahi under Ranapur Block to Chikiti under Ganjam District, as the driver could not produce any document towards transportation of paddy through his vehicle. Hence, E.C. proceeding was initiated which was registered as E.C. No.2 of 2014 against the Petitioner No.1 and the driver for allegedly violating Clause (4) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale and Movement Order, 1982. Accordingly, on being noticed E.C. No.2 of 2014, they filed Show-Cause Reply. But without considering the same in its proper prospective, the impugned order was passed in E.C. No.2 of 2014.

3. Heard Ms. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners so also Mr. Panigrahi, learned ASC for the State-Opposite Parties.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits, before passing the impugned Order dated 05.09.2014 by the Opposite Party No.1, in terms of the Section 6A of the Act, the Petitioners were not given any notice in writing and the procedure to be followed under Section 6B of the Act was never followed before passing the impugned order, thereby the Petitioners were debarred from the opportunity to have their say. The principles of natural justice was not followed before passing the impugned order. She further submits, the said proceeding was initiated on mere apprehension of purchase of paddy from the farmers at below minimum supported price so also due to non-submission of valid documents and for alleged contravention of Clause-4 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale and Movement Order, 1982, though they being cultivators, were bringing paddy in terms of Clause-8 of the said Order, 1982. She further submits, the Opposite Party No.1 (Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Nayagarh), while passing the impugned Order dated 05.09.2014, failed to appreciate the fact that the Petitioners are farmers/cultivators, who a