THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13514 of 2010 Dated 20th October, 2010 Between: L. Shevya …Petitioner And The District Collector, Nalgonda and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. D. Jaganmohan Reddy Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr. Sravan Kumar Mannava The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 03.05.2010 of respondent No.1 to the extent of confiscation of 302 bags of 1010 variety of paddy belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the abovementioned paddy, which was kept in the godown belonging to the State Warehousing Corporation at Neredcherla. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated in respect of various stocks concerned in the said godown. In all, two varieties of paddy belonging to the farmers were seized, besides the BPT paddy variety belonging to the traders. The present writ petition is concerned with 302 bags of 1010 variety of paddy belonging to the petitioner. After completing the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act, respondent No.1 has passed order dated 03.05.2010, whereby he has directed release of 3892 bags of BPT paddy and 4747 bags of 1010 variety of paddy to the farmers and ordered confiscation of the value of 108 bags of BPT paddy and 1053 bags of 1010 variety of paddy in favour of the Government. The petitioner has pleaded in his affidavit that though the report dated 05.09.2009 submitted by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 referred to the name of the petitioner as the owner of 302 bags of 1010 variety of paddy seized, no notice was given to him in the proceedings held under Section 6-A of the Act and the confiscation orders were passed in respect of the said quantity along with the other quantities belonging to other farmers. It is further pleaded that except the petitioner, all other farmers have received notices in the said proceedings. Respondent No.1 has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that notices were given to all those farmers who have filed their claim petitions and that as the petitioner has failed to make any such claim petition, no notice was given to him. Under Section 6-B of the Act, no order confiscating any essential commodity, package, etc., shall be made under Section 6-A of the Act unless the owner thereof is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity etc.; an opportunity of making representation and a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the face of this mandatory statutory provision, it is incumbent upon respondent No.1 to give a notice and opportunity of hearing before passing any order of confiscation. The stand taken by respondent No.1 in the counter- affidavit that as the petitioner failed to file his claim petition, no such notice was given cannot be countenanced because the requirement of giving notice under Section 6-B is not circumscribed by any conditions. Irrespective of the owner filing a claim petition, issue of notice under Section 6-B of the Act is mandatory. Ordinarily, this Court does not entertain writ petitions filed bypassing statutory remedy. However, the law is well settled that an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is nonest and a writ petition filed bypassing the alternative remedy to question such an order is entertained (See Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks[1] and Harbans Lal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited[2]). In view of this settled legal position and having regard to the admitted fact that the petitioner is the owner of the seized goods and that he was not given a notice and an opportunity of hearing as envisaged under Section 6-B of the Act, the impugned order of respondent No.1 to the extent of confiscating 302 bags of 1010 variety of paddy belonging to the petitioner is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue a notice to the petitioner in terms of Section 6-B of the Act and hear him before passing a fresh order. Respondent No.1 shall complete the exercise of disposing of the proceedings afresh within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the seized paddy belonging to the petitioner is not already sold, the same shall not be sold till conclusion of proceedings under Section 6- A of the Act. However, if the paddy has already been sold, in the event the petitioner succeeding either wholly or in part, he is entitled to receive the value of the paddy to the extent to which he succeeds. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.1702 and 17029 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim reliefs are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th October, 2010 Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/o) GHN [1] 1998(8) SCC 1 [2] 2003(2) SCC 107