SUDHANGSU SEKHAR GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) THESE three cases are taken up together as that facts in all the three are similar and the law involved in all the three are quite he same. ( 2 ) IN all these three cases consignments of edibles sent from places outside West Bengal, reached Shalimar yard of the South Eastern Railway and unloaded there. The consignees asked for delivery when they were told that the consignments were seized under the provisions of the W. B. Food Stuff (Restriction on Storage in Railway Premises) Order, 1979 and they were told to apply to the Collector for getting delivery of the consignments. The Collector (Addi. Collector and S. D. O. , Sadar Howrah here) when approached directed seizure of the consignments, served notice upon the consignees to show cause as to why the consignments would not be confiscated and directed sale of the consignments by public auction. Hence, these revisional applications for quashing the said proceedings and the orders directing bale of the consignments. ( 3 ) THE law involved in the three proceedings may be summarised as follows: Procedure under Essential Commodities Act 1955 head with W. B. Food Stuff (Restriction on Storage in Railway Premises) Order, 1979. Para-3 (1) Prohibits keeping a consignment of Food Stuff in Rly. premises beyond seven days after termination of transit thereof as per section 77 (5) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. Para-3 (2) After expiry of the seven days the Railway Administration shall draw up a statement containing all the particulars, exhibit the same and send a copy of the same to the Collector of the District. Para-5 (1) Collector or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of an Inspector of Food and Supplies authorised by the Collector or any Police Officer not below the rank of an A. S. I. may, with a view to securing compliance with this order or to satisfy himself that this order has been complied with, (a) inspect or cause to be inspected any stock of food-stuff (b) (c) (d) (e) Seize and remove (i) any stock of food-stuff. (ii) (iii) ( 4 ) IF he was reason to believe that such stock is liable to be confiscated or forfeited under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and thereafter take or authorised the taking of all measures necessary for securing the production of the stock so seized before the Collector of the District under the provisions of section 6a of the said Act and for their safe custody pending such production; Section 6. A of the Essential Commodities Act 1955: (1) where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, a report of such seizure shall, without any unreasonable delay, be made to the Collector of the District and the Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of (a) the essential commodity so seized (b) (c) Provided that Provided further (2) Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure of any essential commodity under sub-section to is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural delay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may (i ). . . . (ii) order the same to be sold by public auction. Section 6-B - Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of Essential Commodity: (1) No order confiscating any essential commodity shall be made under section 6. A unless the owner of such essential commodity. . . or the person from whom it is seized (a) is given a notice in writing in forming him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity (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; (2) (3) Section 6-C. Appeal. (1) The relevant and salient features of the three cases may be described as in the table below: SI. No. (1) Case No. (2) Rly. Receipt (3) D/despatch (4) Arrival (5) Unlading (6) 1. 34/86 (a) D/395090 (Mung) (b) D/395093 (Mung) 17/11/85 17/11/85 27/11/85 29/11/85 1/12/85 5/12/85 2. (1) The relevant and salient features of the three cases may be described as in the table below: SI. No. (1) Case No. (2) Rly. Receipt (3) D/despatch (4) Arrival (5) Unlading (6) 1. 34/86 (a) D/395090 (Mung) (b) D/395093 (Mung) 17/11/85 17/11/85 27/11/85 29/11/85 1/12/85 5/12/85 2. 55/86 B/899617 (Jawar) 28/11/85 3/12/85 12/12/85 3. 68/86 (a) E/969802} Jawer (b) E/969803} 8/12/85 19/12/85 23/12/85 ( 5 ) IT will be seen from the table that at least in two cases (serial) (b) and 2) delivery was demanded much before the expiry of seven days from the date of unloading and so also in the remaining cases (Si. No. 1 (a) and 3) if the intervening Sundays (8. 12. 1985, 3 1. 12. 1985, 1. 1. 1986) are not taken into consideration. It is urged at the first instance that to initiate a proceeding under section 6a of the E. C. Act and direct confiscation of a consignment of Essential Commodity (a) there must be a seizure of the Essential Commodity pursuant to an order under section 3 of the E. C. Act. (b) The report of such seizure must be made to the Collector without unreasonable delay; and (c) The Collector must invoke his satisfaction, from the report, to the effect that there has been a contravention of the order in question. It is urged none of the three conditions were present in these three cases and that as such the three proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. This argument does not take into consideration para 5 (1) of the W. B. Food Stuff (Restriction on Storage in Railway Premises) Order, 1979-Order henceforward-referred to above, which empowers the Collector to order seizure. In the case at hand the Collector derived his knowledge from the reports of the police. It is not at all material, therefore, that the seizure did not precede the satisfaction of the Collector in these cases it is urged next that since the consignments had not been seized on the days when the petitioners approached the Railway Authorities for their delivery, the said Authorities had no right to refuse delivery of the same. There is no merit in this argument too. There is no merit in this argument too. Where there is contravention of the Act and reporting of the same to the Collector, as in these cases, the Railway Authorities have no right to deliver the consignment such delivery after reporting without the permission of the Collector will certainly go against section 6a of the Act. It is urged next that there was no contravention of the Act or the order in any of these three cases since the petitioners went to take delivery of the consignments within seven days of their unloading at the Railway Yard. Deli. Demanded (7) Collecter Petitioned (8) Order of seizure (9) Date of Seizure (10) 2nd Ptn. Before the collecter (11) Auction sale ordered (12) 9/12/85 11/12/85 17/12/85 19/12/85 6/1/86 8/1/86 9/12/85 11/12/85 17/12/85 19/12/85 6/1/86 8/1/86 16/12/85 18/12/85 18/12/85 18/12/85 10/1/86 31/12/85 2/1/86 2/1/86 13/1/86 Para 3 of the order requires that the consignee must remove the consignment from the Railway premises within a period of seven days from its termination of transit as per the definition of the term in section 77 (5) of the Indian Railway Act. According to section 77 (5) transit terminates (1) 011 the expiry of the free time allowed (after the arrival of the consignment at the destination) for their unloading from the wagons without payment of demurrage, and (2) when such unloading has been completed, on the expiry of the free time allowed for the removal of the consignment from the railway premises without payment of wharfage. It may be that the first contingency applies to a case where the unloading has to be done by the consignee and the second where the unloading has to be done by the Railways. Be that as it may, this leads to the question as to what is the extent of free time allowed in each case. The learned Advocate for the petitioners contend that the free time is seven days from the date of arrival of the goods and he produces a letter (not in the file) from a high authority of the Railways to prove his point. The learned Advocates for the State and the Railways contend on the other hand that the free time allowed is only four hours. The learned Advocates for the State and the Railways contend on the other hand that the free time allowed is only four hours. Rule 197 of the Goods Tariff Part 1-A of the S. B. Railway in force from 1st May, 1967 shows that (P. 39) the free time allowed for wharfage at Shalimar (P. 31) is 24 hours from midnight of the day on which goods are received for delivery. There is no knowing when the wagons were placed in position for unloading in the present three cases and if the unloading was to be done by the Railways or the owners. It is not possible to enter into all these questions in the short compass of the present cases, which arise out of application under Article 227 of the Constitution. On the materials at hand it is not possible, therefore, to conclude as to whether in these cases demands for delivery were made within a period of seven days from the termination of transit. It cannot be said for certain therefore that the Collector did anything wrong by ordering seizure in these cases since in these cases from the police report submitted to him, he felt that Para 3 (1) of the order was violated It is urged next that the Collector could not pass the order for salt: by auction under the cases. ( 6 ) IN view of the provisions of section 6-A (2) of the E. C. Act, 1955 the Collector vary certainly could do that. In view of the decision in Re: Swadeshi Sugar Supplis, however, the Collector should have given the petitioners an opportunity of being heard before passing the order of auction-sale Since much delay has already been made in these three cases the Collector should consider whether he should dispose of these 3 cases as early as possible on an urgent basis without selling the Food Stuff involved in all the three cases as already ordered by him. While disposing of the three cases, the Collector should come to a definite conclusion as to whether the demands for delivery were made in these cases before the expiry of seven days from the date of termination of transit of each of the three consignments. While disposing of the three cases, the Collector should come to a definite conclusion as to whether the demands for delivery were made in these cases before the expiry of seven days from the date of termination of transit of each of the three consignments. In case however, the Collector insists upon selling the Food Stuff in question by auction under the provisions of section 6-A (2) of the E. C. Act, 1955 the Collector should at that event give the petitioners an opportunity of being heard before taking steps for selling the same. Send copies of all these three judgments to the learned Collector/collectors in seizing. This judgment will cover Rev. Nos. 34, 55 and 68 of 1986. .