JUDGEMENT 1. The certified copy of the order complained of in this application under Art.227 of the Constitution has been filed in Court today. 2. The same be accepted and kept on record. 3. In compliance with this Court's order dt. 3-10-85 the petitioner has also filed the affidavit of service in Court on 26-6-86. It appears that service of the revisional application has been duly effected on the opposite party. 4. Let the affidavit of service filed be accepted and kept on record. 5. The revisional application has been heard upon notice to and on contest by the opposite party. 6. The arrival of some sugar at Asansol, said to be unaccounted for, led to several cases which ultimately found their way up to this Court. There has been a lot of confusion also over the matter. The position is this that some sugar arrived at Asansol and the same was seized by the Police, the Enforcement Branch, on 26-3-85. The petitioner was the registered agent in regard to the disposal and distribution of sugar. The allegation was that excess quantity of sugar was found and the same was not properly registered in the appropriate books. After seizure, a case was started. The son of the owner petitioner was present and he was arrested. A few days later, notice was served. That notice was for confiscation. Now S.6A(2) proceedings were also commenced for disposal of the sugar. It was alleged that no notice was served in relation to such proceedings. The matter was disposed of by the Ld. Collector and there was order for disposal of the sugar. Against that, the aggrieved party went to the High Court. There was stay order by this Court. That was in a writ petition. Against that order of this Court, there was an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench passed some order for disposal of the sugar. All these were done by the son of the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a revision case, and prayed for stay. But as there was an order by the Division Bench hearing the appeal from the order in the writ petition, the single judge of this Court hearing the application found some difficulty and referred the matter to a Criminal Division Bench. It so happened that the order of the appellate Court sitting over appeal in writ matter was ultimately vacated. But as there was an order by the Division Bench hearing the appeal from the order in the writ petition, the single judge of this Court hearing the application found some difficulty and referred the matter to a Criminal Division Bench. It so happened that the order of the appellate Court sitting over appeal in writ matter was ultimately vacated. Finally, the Criminal Bench of this Court disposed of the matter, and set aside the order of the Collector dated 4-4-85. That order of the Criminal Division Bench is set out in page 14 of the petition. It appears that the order of the Collector for disposal of the sugar was set aside by the Division Bench on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner of being heard. By the same order, the Criminal Division Bench directed that Collector to comply with the direction of that Bench within a fortnight from that date. To expedite the matter the Division Bench directed the petitioner to appear before the Collector on Sept. 20, 1985, so that the matter could be disposed of within the limit prescribed by the Bench. The matter went back to the Collector. By order dt. 25-9-85, the Collector made a composite and a rather confusing order boiling up everything together. By that order dt. 25-9-85, the Collector first made a direction for confiscation of the sugar to the State of West Bengal under sub-sec. (1) of S.6A of the E.C. Act. Then, incidentally as it were, he made further orders for sale of the sugar through fair price shops at prices fixed by the Government of India. 7. The petitioner feels aggrieved by that order and has come up before this Court by filing an application under Art.227 of the Constitution. 8. Mr. Roy, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the entire order of the Collector was misconceived and confused, because by the same order he was disposing of both confiscation matter and sale matter, although the first matter was not set down for hearing. He has submitted that by not giving chance to make proper representation in S.6A(1) of the E.C. Act matter, the entire order has been rendered a nullity, having been passed without jurisdiction. That has been his main submission. 9. Mr. Chowdhury, Addl. He has submitted that by not giving chance to make proper representation in S.6A(1) of the E.C. Act matter, the entire order has been rendered a nullity, having been passed without jurisdiction. That has been his main submission. 9. Mr. Chowdhury, Addl. Public Prosecutor of this Court appearing for the State, has supported the order of the Collector on the ground that the petitioner was allowed time to make representation and did not avail of it. So, according to Mr. Chaudhury, the order did not violate any principle of natural justice or any statutory provision. 10. After hearing both sides, I feel that the order complained against cannot stand. A little examination of the record of the Collector would reveal that he was confused about the nature of the two proceedings. By order 25-9-85, he disposed of the confiscation matter, as envisaged by S.6A(1) of the E.C. Act. There is another part of the section and that is contained in sub-sec. (2). That concerns with the disposal of the commodity, which is subject to speedy and natural decay. That provision of sub-sec. (2) appears to be in the nature of an interlocutory measure intended to avoid the wastage of the commodity, the order under it, in its nature is to be an incidental order. It may be recalled that there was an earlier order of the Ld. Collector and that is dt. 4-4-85. In that order, the Collector had taken care to mention that disposal of the commodities was necessary in order to avoid natural decay in the public interest. That was strictly an order under S.6A(2). Against that order, the petitioner had moved the Criminal Division Bench. And that Bench set aside the order, as noticed before, on the ground that no chance was given to the petitioner to be heard. Therefore by the order of the Criminal Division Bench, the Collector was to dispose of the sale matter within a certain time fixed. The other matter, namely, the confiscation matter, was not before the Criminal Division Bench. Still, however, the Ld. Collector mixed up the two matters and passed a composite order. That should not have been done. 11. Going deeper into the matter, it is found that the principle of natural justice and the statutory provisions as contained in the E.C. Act were not observed. Still, however, the Ld. Collector mixed up the two matters and passed a composite order. That should not have been done. 11. Going deeper into the matter, it is found that the principle of natural justice and the statutory provisions as contained in the E.C. Act were not observed. In relation to confiscation matter under S.6A(1) notice to show cause was served. The order dt. 4-4-85 discloses that notice under S.6B was issued. Service return of notice was received as disclosed by order dt. 10-4-85. On 17-4-85 the O.P. (the petitioner here) prayed for time to file above cause. That was allowed and 10-5-86 was the date fixed for showing cause. Again on 10-5-85, the O.P. (petitioner here) made a prayer for time. That prayer was allowed and 10-7-85 was the date fixed for showing cause. It does not appear that the cause was shown ultimately. Now the record of the Collector reveals that no order in relation thereto was passed. If the petitioner failed to show cause, the Collector could take appropriate action and was not bound to drag it indefinitely. But then, in that case he should apply his mind and fix a certain date for hearing ex parte or otherwise. Nothing from the record of the Collector indicates that. It may be pointed out that under S.68 of the E.C. Act, the person from whom the property is seized must be given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified. If the Collector thought that no more time could be given for showing cause, that should have been indicated. But from the record it does not appear that the Collector applied his mind to that aspect of the matter at all. S.68(1)(c) also envisages that the party concerned should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. If it was not indicated in the order of the Collector that no more time was to be given and the matter was to be fixed for final hearing on a certain date, it cannot be contended that the party concerned got reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. If it was not indicated in the order of the Collector that no more time was to be given and the matter was to be fixed for final hearing on a certain date, it cannot be contended that the party concerned got reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. As a matter of fact, the party did not know that the matter under S.6A(1) was at all being heard ; possibly the Collector was also oblivious of the fact that that matter was not the subject matter of hearing. While making effort to comply with the order of the High Court to dispose of the sale matter, he fell into confusion and passed the composite order embracing both Ss. 6A(1) and 6A(2). In fact, the order complained of is more an order under S.6A(1), rather than an order under S.6A(2). The Collector made an order for confiscation and as an incidental order, he made some provision for disposal of the commodity. That was the grave error committed by him. He disposed of the confiscation matter without giving chance to the parties of being heard. It was never even fixed for hearing. So, that order is without jurisdiction. It must be quashed. The incidental order for disposal of the commodity cannot also stand, because it was made part of the order under S.6A(1), although the Collector felt he was complying with the order of the Criminal Division Bench of this Court in the matter of S.6A(2). Such being the position, although the Collector tried to comply with the order of the Criminal Division Bench, no part of his order can be sustained, one being the integral part of the other. The whole order must be quashed. 12. Mr. Chaudhury has submitted that revision application does not lie before this Court, because S.60 of the E.C. Act provides for appeal and where there is provision for appeal, without taking recourse to that process, a party cannot come up by way of revisional application. It is missed by him, however, that the application has been filed under Art.227 of the Constitution. Needless to say that the provision of the E.C. Act cannot circumscribe or limit the power of the court under Art.227. The E.C. Act in anyway cannot abridge the constitutional right. It is missed by him, however, that the application has been filed under Art.227 of the Constitution. Needless to say that the provision of the E.C. Act cannot circumscribe or limit the power of the court under Art.227. The E.C. Act in anyway cannot abridge the constitutional right. No decision perhaps is needed for that, but if any citation is necessary, the case reported in (1983) 87 Cal WN 358, may be referred to. The order of the Ld. Collector having been passed without jurisdiction, it must be set aside under Art.227 of the Constitution. 13. In the result, this revisional application must succeed. It is allowed. The order of the Collector dt. 25-9-85 is quashed and the matter sent back to him for fresh decision. In disposing of the Ss. 6A(1) and 6A(2) matters, taking them as separate matters, the Collector is to give the aggrieved party a chance to make representation u/S.6B and also chance to be heard. After compliance with the principles of natural justice and also the mandatory statutory provision of S.6B of the E.C. Act, the Ld. Collector will dispose of the matter according to law. 14. The revisional application is thus allowed. 15. Let the records be sent down forthwith. 16. Since the revisional application has been disposed of, no order need be passed on the application for production of documents and the same shall be deemed to have been disposed of. Revision allowed.