THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.21900 OF 2008 BETWEEN: M/s. Venugopal Traders, Nandyal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, rep. by its Proprietor N.G. Krishna Murthy, S/o. N.Venkata Subbaiah …. PETITIONER And 1. The Dostrict Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District, and others. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioner: Sri K.V. Raghuveer Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies The Court made the following order: ORDER: The petitioner-firm is a registered dealer authorized to carry on business of selling and storing of Pulses under the provisions of the A.P. Pulses (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2007/A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982, (for short ‘the Control Order’) under licence No.FGL/Pulses/176/2006. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 17.09.2008 in ROC.No.DSO/CS1/EC.No.89/2008, whereby the 1st respondent ordered confiscation of 488.50 quintals of red gram, purportedly under Clause 6-A (1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act’). The Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Sirvel inspected the premises viz., M/s. Lakshmi Venkateswara Padmavathi Rural Farmers Warehouse, situated at Ponnapuram Village, on 24.07.2008 and verified the stocks available with reference to the stock register. He found a total stock of 2540.65 quintals, out of which 488.50 quintals belonged to the petitioner, and the balance of 2052.15 quintals was in the name of 12 benami farmers. The Deputy Tahsildar verified the pattadar passbooks and found variation between the acreage and stocks. On the basis of the said inspection, the Deputy Tahsildar submitted a report concluding that the stock was hoarded in unlicenced premises in the name of benami farmers and the premises inspected viz., M/s. Lakshmi Venkateswara Padmavathi Rural Farmers Warehouse, was not an authorized storage point for the petitioner. Therefore, alleging contravention of the Control Order, the Inspecting Officer seized the entire stock of 2540.65 quintals of red gram and handed over to one T. Shiva Reddy said to be the Managing partner of the Warehouse, for safe custody. Upon seizure of the said stock, the petitioner submitted a petition through Advocate to the 1st respondent and sought for release of stocks, pending enquiry. The Special Deputy Collector issued notice dated 29.08.2008 in Rc.SDC/CS-1/EC No.89/2008, to the petitioner to attend before the District Collector, Kurnool, on 6.09.2008 for hearing. Accordingly, the matter was heard by the 1st respondent. The petitioner sought to establish that it did not commit any contravention of the Control Order. It was the contention of the petitioner that M/s. Lakshmi Venkateswara Padmavathi Rural Farmers Warehouse, where the red gram was stored, is also an authorized point as per the licence held by it. According to it, it had informed the Licensing Authority that in addition to the existing authorized point, M/s. Lakshmi Venkateswara Padmavathi Rural Farmers Warehouse would be an additional storage point. It also sought to justify non- submission of C-Form returns, on the ground that non-submission of C-Form returns is a technical irregularity, which should not attract serious punishment of confiscation of seizure of stock. The 1st respondent thereupon passed order dated 17.09.2008. The said finding reads as under: “I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to submit the details of monthly transactions that were taken place in that month which are to be reported either to C.T.O. (or) the Licensing Authority there by giving an ambiguity that he has committed illegal transaction and doing clandestine business to get pecuniary gain. There by the trader in question has violated clause 18(C) of A.P., Pulses (LS & R) Order, 2008. The counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner has informed Licensing Authority that they are storing Red Gram in the new premises. But, proof of intimation to Licensing Authority about storing in the new premises is not produced. On the above grounds, it is hereby ordered for confiscation of 488.50 Qtls Red Gram from Sri N.G.Krishnamurthy, Prop. Sri Venugopal Traders, Nandyal Town, under clause 6A (1) of E.C. Act, 1955.” Thus holding that hoarding of sized stock was with a mala fide intention for pecuniary gain, the 1st respondent ordered confiscation of the sized stock. It is against this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 1st respondent ordered confiscation without having regard to the actual facts and without observing the mandatory provisions of Section 6-B of the Act. He would contend that the petitioner is authorized to store the stock at M/s. Lakshmi Venkateswara Padmavathi Rural Farmers Warehouse by virtue of the deeming provisions contained in the Control Order and that non-submission of C-Form returns should not be construed as violation of the Control Order. He would therefore contend that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would deny the said contentions and submit that the order was validly passed. He would also submit that the notice dated 29.08.2008 itself should be construed as a notice under Section 6-B of the Act. He would further submit that against the impugned order, appeal would lie under Section 6-C of the Act to the District Court, and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. Admittedly, the petitioner is a licensed trader to deal with pulses at the relevant point of time. Whether it was authorized to store the stocks at M/s. Lakshmi Venkateswara Padmavathi Rural Farmers Warehouse, whether it was indulging in hoarding the stock and whether its failure to submit C-Form return would attract confiscation of entire stock, are the questions of fact in respect of which, I am not inclined to deal with in this writ petition in view of the specific stand taken by the petitioner that the impugned order was not preceded by a notice under Section 6-B of the Act. The stock was seized by the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) Koilakuntla on 24.07.2008. Based on the report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 26.07.2008 under Section 6-A of the Act and directed the District Manager, Civil Supplies Corporation, Kurnool to take possession of the seized stock and dispose of the same through public distribution system. He was also directed to remit the sale proceeds to the revenue account. The petitioner herein filed a petition before the 1st respondent seeking release of stock in its favour. It is on such application, the Special Deputy Collector issued notice dated 29.08.2008 in RC.SDC/CS-1/EC No.89/2008, which reads as follows. The Special Team consisting with the following officials- 1. Sri D.V. Ramana Murthy, Inspector of Police, V & Enforcement, Kurnool; 2. Sri G. Babulal, C.S.D.T, Sirvel, have seized 2540.65 Qtls. of Red Gram from M/s. Lakshmi Venkateswara Padmavathi Rural Farmers Warehouse on 24.07.2008. Interim Disposal orders were issued in this office reference 3rd cited pending enquiry Sri N.G. Krishna Murthy, Managing Partner, Sri Venugopal Trders, Nandyal, filed petition through the Advocate Sri C. Satyanarayana, Kurnool, with a request to release the seized stocks on the plea that he has got licence and stored 488.50 quintals of pulses below permissible quantities. After perusal of the contents of the petition filed and the material available from this office records, it is hereby decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the Trader and therefore he is hereby requested to attend before the District Collector, Kurnool by 4.00 P.M. on 6.09.2008 in his chamber along with relevant evidences, if any. Failing which it will be construed that there is no more explanation with him and orders will be passed on the material available on records.” After hearing the matter, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2008. A perusal of the notice extracted above and the references shown in the impugned order would clearly disclose that the 1st respondent was dealing only with the application filed by the petitioner for release of seized stock pending enquiry. Neither the notice dated 29.08.2008 nor the proceedings dated 17.09.2008 refer to any notice under Section 6-B of the Act. Even though the petitioner, in paragraph-7 of the affidavit, specifically asserted that the 1st respondent failed to issue show cause notice as contemplated under Section 6-B of the Act informing the grounds on which the confiscation was proposed and that the notice for hearing dated 29.08.2008 is not in compliance with the provisions of Section 6- B of the Act, the 1st respondent in his counter affidavit, neither traversed nor controverted the said specific contention. On the other hand, the 1st respondent by adverting to the notice dated 29.08.2008 sought to justify on the ground that the petitioner did not raise any objection for non-issuance of show cause notice under Section 6-B of the Act. The notice dated 29.08.2008 did not indicate the proposal for confiscation by setting out the grounds for such confiscation. On the other hand, the said notice was given in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner for reference of the seized stock, pending enquiry. Therefore, it must be held that the confiscation ordered under the impugned order is without notice under Section 6-B of the Act and consequently violative of the requirements contained in clause (a) of Section 6-B (1) of the Act. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the notice dated 29.08.2008 itself should be construed as a notice under Section 6-B of the Act. It is true that against the order of confiscation, an appeal is provided under Section 6-C of the Act. However, in a case like this where demonstrably there is a violation of the mandatory provisions of law and the principles of natural justice, existence of alternative remedy is not a bar to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the analysis as above, the impugned order dated 17.09.2008 in ROC.No.DSO/CS.1/EC.No.89/2008 is held to be unsustainable, and the same is accordingly set aside. Since I have set aside the impugned order only on the ground of non-issuance of notice under Section 6-B of the Act, the 1st respondent is permitted to issue notice as contemplated under Section 6-B of the Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. This Court by order dated 24.12.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.28546 of 2008 directed release of the seized stock on furnishing third party security to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the stock has already been released in his favour. That being so, the security already furnished shall be in force until orders are passed as observed above. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 28th October, 2010 Js.