( 1 ) ON February 26. 1968 at, about 5 p. m. 125 bags of rice were seized near narasimharaiapura in the district of Chikmagalur by the food staff of the office of the Deputy Commissioner of that district from two persons Naik and Prabhu who were transporting it. On March 1, 1968 Naik and Prabhu from whom the rice had been so seized made an application to the Deputy commissioner for the return of the seized rice to them and their allegation. was that they were the agents of the three petitioners before me to whom, according to them, the rice belonged. The Deputy Commissioner issued a notice to Naik and Prabhu asking them to appear before him on March 5, 1968 with respect to the application so made to him, and after hearing them on that day. he made an order on March R, 1968 confiscating the rice which had been seized as mentioned above Although he did not sav so in so manv words, it is clear that this order of confiscation was made by him under Sec. 6a of the Essential Commodities; Act. 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955), and that that is so was not disputed by Mr. Havanur appearing for the State. ( 2 ) THE Deputy Commissioner made the order of confiscation on the basis of his conclusion that there was a contravention of an order made under section 3 of that Act. Section 6a reads : where any foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils are seized In pursuance of an order made under S. 3 in relation thereto, they may be produced, without anv unreasonable delay, before the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils are seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector, if satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of the foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils: provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no foodgrains or edible oilseeds seized in pursuance of an order made under Sec. 3 in relating thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oilseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section. ( 3 ) THE complaint made in this revision petition presented by the three petitioners, who, according to Naik and Prabhu from whom the rice was seized, are their principals, is that the order of confiscation made by the deputy Commissioner was not preceded by the issue of a show cause notice directed by S. 6b of the Essential Commodities Act , 1956 which reads:"no order confiscating any foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils shall be made under S 6a unless the owner of such articles or the person from whom they are seized- (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to cofiscate the articles; (b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. " ( 4 ) IT seems to me that there can be no answer to this contention. Although S 6a authorises confiscation of the seized foodgrains if the deputy Commissioner was satisfied that there was a contravention of an order made under S. 3 of the Act, that confiscation should be preceded by the issue of a show cause notice under S. 6b which should inform the owner of the foodgrains or the person from whom they were seized, the grounds on which he proposed to make the confiscation. What is further necessary is that the Deputy Commissioner should give the person to whom that notice is issued, an opportunity of making a representation in writing within a reasonable time to be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation, and an additional opportunity of being heard in the matter These are the three essential preliminary steps which are made indispensable by S. 6b, and it is plain that none of those steps was taken by the Deputy Commissioner before he made the impugned confiscation order. ( 5 ) THERE is a serious controversy in this court with respect to the question whether naik and Prabhu were the agents of any of the three petitioners. With that question, I am not concerned in this revision petition. Although Mr. ( 5 ) THERE is a serious controversy in this court with respect to the question whether naik and Prabhu were the agents of any of the three petitioners. With that question, I am not concerned in this revision petition. Although Mr. Havanur appearing for the State Government contended before me that there was substantial compliance with Sec. 6b of the essential Commodities Act, I have no doubt in my mind that there was no obedience whatsoever to the provisions of that section. Whether the petitioners or any of them or some of them were the principals of Naik and Prabhu or not, what was imperative under S. 6b, was, that the Deputy commissioner, before he made his confiscation order, should have issued a notice either to the persons from whom the rice was seized or to its owners, if they were not the owners, intimating to them the grounds on which he proposed to make a confiscation order. No such notice was issued by the deputy Commissioner either to the petitioners before me or to Naik and prabhu from whom the rice was seized. That being so, the other two steps directed by clauses (b) and (c) of S. 6b which respectively speak of an opportunity to make a representation and an opportunity of being heard, did not arise. The impugned order of confiscation was made by the Deputy commissioner not because he wanted to make one under the provisions of s. 6a. That order was made in an entirely different proceeding commenced by Naik and Prabhu through an application which they made to the deputy Commissioner for the release of the seized rice. It was in the context of that application that the Deputy Commissioner fixed a date of hearing on which he directed them to appear before him. It was that application which he could grant or refuse. ( 6 ) IT is plain and there is no allegation to the contrary that the only matter with respect to which Naik and Prabhu when they made their applications before the Deputy Commissioner, made their submissions was the prayer that the rice seized from them should be returned to them. That being so, what the Deputy Commissioner could have done was to return the rice to the applicants or to refuse to make that return. That being so, what the Deputy Commissioner could have done was to return the rice to the applicants or to refuse to make that return. He could not on the application which he had before him direct a confiscation of the rice unless the order of confiscation was made in adherence to the procedure prescribed by S. 6b of the Essential Commodities Act. ( 7 ) THE argument advanced bv Mr. Havanur that the hearing of the application presented by Naik and Prabhu was really a hearing afforded with respect to a proposed order of confiscation, is unacceptable for the reason that the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner make it perfectly manifest that before the impugned order of confiscation was made there was at no state any proposal to make it and no intimation about it was imparted to the applicants who asked no more than for the return of the rice seized from them. So the proceedings in respect of the application for such return cannot be equiparated with a proceeding for confiscation under S. 6a and 6b. ( 8 ) I therefore set aside the order made bv the Deputy Commissioner and that made by the Sessions Judge in appeal. On the other questions argued before me as to whether there was or was not a contravention of an order made under S. 3 of the Essential commodities Act and as to the consequences of such contravention if there was one, I express no opinion in this revision petition. --- *** --- .