JUDGMENT Mahavir Singh, J. The relevant facts are that the applicant was said to be transporting five drums of Kerosene Oil and one drum of crude oil belonging to one Ram Kumar on hire: The truck was intercepted by Mallawan Police. The applicant presented an application before the Collector that the tructk may be given back to him. Amongst others he alleged that he had no knowledge that his truck was carrying any article the movement of which was prohibited by law. The Collector held that from the circumstances of the case the applicant would be deemed to have knowledge about the contents of the drums and he had no licence for transporting the oil. Thus he violated the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. He, therefore, ordered its confiscation under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. The applicant filed an appeal before the learned Sessions judge. The learned Sessions judge also upheld the order passed by the learned Collector. He held that the applicant must be deemed to have a knowledge of the contents of the oil and his allegation to the contrary was not acceptable. Accordingly he dismissed the appeal. In revision it has been contended that the authorities below had not at all followed the law dealing with confiscation of articles or vehicles nor it has been shown that the transport of such goods are prohibited by law. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant has a force. The proceedings for confiscation of essential commodities or of a vehicle carrying the same in contravention of the provisions of the Act or any order passed thereunder are contained Act. While Section 6B provides for (the manner in which it can be done. Section 6B(1) of the said Act provides that no order confiscating any essential commodities, package, covering, receptacle, animal vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under Section, 6A unless the owner of such vehicle or the person from whom it was seized, is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodities, package, covering, receptacle, animal vehicle. In the present case no notice whatsoever was issued to the applicant as provided in this section. In the present case no notice whatsoever was issued to the applicant as provided in this section. All action has been taken on the application moved by the applicant for release of the vehicle but that application is not a substitute) for issue of a notice provided under Section 6B of the Act. The contention that this omission to issue a notice was an irregularity would have been acceptable if the facts have been otherwise known to the applicant and he had a proper opportunity to explain the same. But this is also not borne out from the record. The applicant in his application was not expected to mention the provision for the contravention of which the vehicle was being seized. The opposition to his application on behalf of the Government also did not mention any particular provision for the violation of which his vehicle was to be confiscated. It was merely alleged that the case under Section 3.7 of the Essential Commodities Act had been registered against the applicant. In his order the learned Collector had, after mentioning that there was a violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act (without disclosing a particular provision of the Act), mentioned that no valid licence for import of the oil was also found, but it was not mentioned as to under what provisions of law a licence for import of the oil Was needed. The learned Sessions Judge also in his order had made no mention of the provision of which the contravention had taken place. He had merely given a finding that the applicant had knowledge that the drums carried on by him contained kerosene oil or crude oil but this alone will not do. It has to be shown that carrying of such articles was prohibited by any order passed by the State or the Central Government. It is no use speculating here as to what would have been the possible violations. The thing has got to be specifically specified by the authority concerned and notice is to be given to the applicant to enable him to reply as required by Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act and then alone the order passed by the Collector can be scrutinised. The thing has got to be specifically specified by the authority concerned and notice is to be given to the applicant to enable him to reply as required by Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act and then alone the order passed by the Collector can be scrutinised. So for the present, it is clear that there has been a complete noncompliance of the provisions of the Sections 6A and 6B of the Essential Commodities Act and, therefore, the orders for confiscation passed by the Collector and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge have to be set aside. The applicant has prayed for release of the vehicle. It is not yet known as to what possible violation has been made by him. It is, therefore, not proper to detain the same. So it has to be given in the supurdagi of the applicant. The revision is allowed. The orders passed by the Collector dated June 1, 1980 and the learned District Judge dated July 10, 1980 are both set aside. The vehicle in question will be given in the supurdagi of the applicant on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ and two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Collector, Hardoi. The vehicle will be subject to any order which may be passed under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act by the Collector according to law or to any order in a criminal prosecution, if any. Revision allowed.