JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - Two Trucks, Nos. URA - 9734 and UPU - 6578, carrying 600 Tins of Palm oil, were seized by the Sales Tax Officer, Flying Squad on 19th March, 1980. The matter was reported to the Addl. District Magistrate (Civil Supplies) for confiscation of the said tins under section 6(a) of the Essentials Commodities Act. Notices were issued to the two drivers Rajendra Singh and Desa Singh. They filed their objections in which they urged that the Trucks had been hired by M/s. Laxmi Transport Co. Varanasi, j and on behalf of the consignors the goods were being taken to Lucknow from Varanasi. Thereafter a notice was issued to Lakshmi Transport Co. on 24th April, 1980. The transporters filed their objections on 6-5-80 and challenged i applicant Rama Kant Shukla, claiming to be the owner of the Palm-oil appeared on behalf of the Prasad Trading Corporation Kanpur. He claimed that the Palm-Oil was imported oil, which was being transported from Varanasi to Lucknow in the said Trucks. He prayed that the oil be released in his favour, as there was no violation of any Control Order. 2. The Addl. District Magistrate after hearing the parties counsel, Was of the view that the business of sale of Palm Oil was being done by Prasad Trading Corporation without a valid licence, and it, therefore, violated the Oil Seeds Control Order and hence infringed the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. He, therefore, directed that 1200 tins of Palm-Oil be confiscated and sold in accordance with the law. 3. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was filed before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi, which has been dismissed on 27th October, 80. A number I of points have been raised by counsel for the parties in this revision, but it will not be necessary for me to deal with them all. I propose to decide this case only on one solitary point. 4. Section 6(a)(1) of the Essential Commodities Act deals with the confiscation of essential commodities, seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 of the Act. I propose to decide this case only on one solitary point. 4. Section 6(a)(1) of the Essential Commodities Act deals with the confiscation of essential commodities, seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 of the Act. Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 6(a) where the Collector on receiving a report of seizure is of opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient j in the public interest, he may order the essential commodity to be sold at the control price. The sale proceeds after deduction of expenses abides the result of the prosecution, which may be launched against the accused. Section 6-B lays down the procedure to be followed before an order confiscating an essential commodity is passed. Under Section 6-B(l) no order of confiscation can be passed of any essential commodity etc. unless the owner of such commodity is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity and he is given an opportunity of making a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. 5. Section 6-C gives rights to an aggrieved party against whom an order of confiscation has been made to file an appeal to the Judicial Magistrate appointed by the State Government, which in the instant case was the Sessions Judge. 6. I have carefully perused the materials on the record. From the order of the Sessions Judge, it appears to me that he was of the opinion that Palm-oil is not the product of any oil seeds, but there was no doubt in his mind that it was an edible oil and that it was used for the preparation of Vanaspati-oil. He has further observed that under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, also, a standard appeared to have been fixed for the analysis of Palm-oil. After discussing some of the Notifications, referred to in his order, he opined that Palm-oil may be used for human consumption. Therefore, in his view Palm-oil being an edible oil used for preparing Vanaspati-oil was covered by the U.P. Vanaspati Dealer Licensing Order 1969 and that could not be sold without a licence. 7. There are two valid objections, which have been presented by the counsel for the applicant in this case. Therefore, in his view Palm-oil being an edible oil used for preparing Vanaspati-oil was covered by the U.P. Vanaspati Dealer Licensing Order 1969 and that could not be sold without a licence. 7. There are two valid objections, which have been presented by the counsel for the applicant in this case. The first objection is that so far as the owner of the Palm-oil is concerned, he was not given any notice of the grounds of confiscation. That appears to be correct from a close scrutiny of the record. It does, however appear that at a subsequent stage the applicant put in his appearance and prayed tor summoning of certain papers from the So apply-Department, so that he may substantiate his plea, but there is nothing of the record to disclose what happened subsequent thereto. Secondly the notice which has been given to the Drivers of the Trucks does not proceed upon the reasoning and the grounds which have prevailed upon the Sessions Judge to hold that Palm oil would be covered by the U.P. Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order, 1969 and that business in this commodity could not be done without a licence. The reference which have been made to the various Notifications and the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, from which an inference has been drawn that the Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order 1969 would be applicable, do not find any mention in the notice which have been issued either to the transporters or to the drivers, who carried the commodity in question. Therefore, even if 1 was to hold that the applicant who claimed to be the owner of the 1260 tins of palm-oil, had put in his appearance in court and should therefore, be deemed to be represented. It is not possible to hold that the grounds and reasoning's on which the instant order of confiscation was passed, was communicated either to the parties who had received notice, or to the applicant, who was the owner of the commodity in question. It is a well known settled principle of law that when a person has been deprived of his property rights, the procedure prescribed by law for j such confiscation ought to be followed. 8. It is a well known settled principle of law that when a person has been deprived of his property rights, the procedure prescribed by law for j such confiscation ought to be followed. 8. As I have mentioned above, Section 6-B(l) contemplates the giving of a notice in writing informing the owner of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity so that he may make an effective representation and be provided with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. In the instant case, this procedure which to my mind, is very essential, in keeping with the principles of natural justice not having been followed, the order of confiscation passed by the authorities concerned can not be upheld in law. 9. For the reasons given above, this application in revision is hereby allowed and the orders passed by the courts below are set aside. On 7-1-1981, I had restrained Opp. Party No. 2 from selling the commodity in question. If prior to my order, a part of the commodity in question has been sold the proceeds thereof plus the balance commodity shall be returned to the applicant forthwith. 10. State counsel prays for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India, which is hereby refused.