IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13062 of 2007 PRABHU SAH & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 04. 24-06-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. At the very outset this Court expresses its displeasure that despite several indulgence granted to the State, no affidavit has been filed on their behalf in support of the impugned order which is contained in aanexure-5. The impugned order dated 27.8.2007 is the order passed by the Collector, Vaishali by virtue of which in a confiscation proceeding the truck of petitioner no.1 has been ordered to be auctioned sold and the foodgrains seized from the said truck belonging to petitioner no.2 has also been ordered for auction. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that no notice was issued to petitioner No.1 and even though notice was issued to petitioner no.2 which is evident from the impugned order there was no representation on behalf of petitioner No.2 on the day the case was taken up. It seems the Collector has proceeded in the matter without satisfying himself that the two petitioners have had an opportunity to place their matter before him. It is a case where no proper opportunity seems to have been given and the consequences are there due to the impugned order in question. In absence of any rebuttal on the submissions on the categorical statements made in this regard in the writ application, on - 2 - behalf of the respondents, the Court has no option but to quash annexure-5 with a direction upon the District Magistrate, Vaishali to issue fresh notice to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 on the issue and after hearing them pass a fresh order in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt/communication of this order. The writ application stands allowed with the above direction. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)