SHAMSUDDIN AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THESE two applications under Article 227 of the Constitution has raised common question of law. Both are directed against order dated the 2nd May, 1986, passed by the learned Collector under the Essential Commodities Act, Howrah in Case No. 66 of 1985 under section 6a of the said Act. By the impugned order the Collector disposed of a proceeding under section 6a of the E. C. Act. He found that there has been no contravention of the West Bengal Pulses Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Control Order, 1978. Accordingly he rejected the confiscation prayer made by the investigating authority of that case. By the same order he also rejected the prayer of the petitioner for return, of the said commodities. According to the learned Collector the commodities involved were seized subsequent to a case of Special Court being Case No. 151 of 1985 pending before the learned Special Judge, Howrah and as the Special Judge can also pass an order of confiscation he is unable to pass an order on the application and this matter has to be dealt with by the learned Special Judge. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Special Judge for return of the seized commodities to her. The learned Special Judge rejected the application on the ground that the case was only at the investigation stage and when a proceeding under section 6a was started it is the Collector who can pass an order. Accordingly, he declined to pass any order and rejected the application. Caught in the midst such a dilema the petitioner has come up with this revisional application. ( 2 ) IN the other application preferred by the State, the State has Prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Collector rejecting the prayer of the Investigating Officer for confiscation of the seized commodities. Their main grievance is that the learned Collector failed to consider if on the facts of the case the provision of Para 4 of the said order was applicable. At the time of the hearing this point was raised before the learned Collector. The learned Collector held that since notice u/s. 6b only ground which was not raised in the said notice and for which the other side has no opportunity, of showing cause. At the time of the hearing this point was raised before the learned Collector. The learned Collector held that since notice u/s. 6b only ground which was not raised in the said notice and for which the other side has no opportunity, of showing cause. Learned Collectors view was that in considering where the seized goods are to be confiscated u/s. 6a he cannot consider a ground which was not taken in the notice u/s. 6b and accordingly he declined to consider the same. ( 3 ) MR. Amit Bhattacharjee appearing for the petitioner Miss. (Dr.) Kapadia submitted that a godown of M/s. Dosi Warehousing Agency was searched by a team of police officers of the District Enforcement Branch, Howrah and one Madanlal Mahato, a Caretaker of the said godown was present there. He was asked to produce licence under West Bengal Pulses Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Order, 1978. During inspection of the papers and documents produced by the said Caretaker it appeared to the Investigating Agency that the petitioner's firm bas violated the provisions of Para 3 of the said Control order. The Care-taker was arrested and a complaint was lodged at the local police station u/s. 7 (i) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. On 11th November, 1985 the 1. 0. submitted a confiscation prayer in respect of the bulk pulses seized in connection with the case before the Collector, Howrah. An order for interim sale was passed by the Collector. Against that an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India was moved by the petitioner before the Honble Justice Mr. U. C. Banerjee challenging therein the entire proceeding pending before the learned Collector. The legality of the seizure of pulses was also challenged. The writ application was ultimately dismissed by His Lordship on the view that the writ Court would not be justified in interfering with an investigation. But the seized articles were not disposed of till then. Thereafter the matter was heard on different dates. Thereafter the learned Collector passed impugned order. The quantity of pulses seized in this case amounted to over 4,000 bags. These pulses were imported from a foreign country under licence. ( 4 ) MR. Bhattacharjee has argued the validity of the seizure of these pulses and on that he bas cited a good number of decisions. Thereafter the learned Collector passed impugned order. The quantity of pulses seized in this case amounted to over 4,000 bags. These pulses were imported from a foreign country under licence. ( 4 ) MR. Bhattacharjee has argued the validity of the seizure of these pulses and on that he bas cited a good number of decisions. Since a prosecution u/s. 7 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act is pending it is not proper for this Court at this stage to come to a finding on that, particularly so as the Collector himself hits declined to confiscate the seized pulses. Before entering into the question raised in this revision let us now examined the provisions relating to confiscation. Section 6 provides that where any essential commodities seized in pursuance of an, order made u/s. 3 a report of such seizure shall, be made to the Collector of the District and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order. The Collector may direct the essential commodities so seized to be produced for inspection before him and if he satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order he may order confiscation of the essential commodity so seized. There are some exceptions noted in the proviso to the said section. Under sub-section (2) of the said section the Collector is authorised to make an order of sale in respect of commodity which are subject to speedy and natural decay or is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do. Subsection (3) lays down where any essential commodity sold the sale proceeds thereof shall where no order of confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector or where an order passed on appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 6c so requires or where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section the person is concerned is acquitted, will be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it is seized. Section 66 provides that no confiscation order u/s. 6a be made unless the owner of such essential commodity etc. for the person from whom. it is seized is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity and also given an opportunity of making a representation in. Section 66 provides that no confiscation order u/s. 6a be made unless the owner of such essential commodity etc. for the person from whom. it is seized is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity and also 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 is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Section 6c provides for an appeal against the order passed by the Collector. Sec. 6e lays down that whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made u/s. 3 in relation thereto the Collector or, as the case may be, the judicial authority appointed u/s, 6c shall have, and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any other court, tribunal or authority shall not have jurisdiction to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property. Sec. 7 (i) (b) provides that any property in respect of which the order has been contravened may be forfeited to the Government as a measure of punishment. On analysis of section. 6a to section 6e it appears that no Court, tribunal or authority shall have any jurisdiction make orders with regard to, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of seized essential commodities excepting the Collector or the judicial authority appointed u/s. 6c. In the instant case, the Collector thought that since a prosecution is pending before the learned Special Judge and be can forfeit the seized essential commodities to the Government as a measure of punishment it is the Special Court who can pass an order. Coming to Sec. 6a (1) we find that whenever essential commodity is seized a report of such seizure shall be made to the Collector whether or not a prosecution instituted for the contravention of such order. He is abundantly clear from this provision that launching of prosecution has no bearing in a proceeding u/s. 6a. Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that bar of jurisdiction has proceeded in Sec. 6e operates so long a confiscation proceeding is not disposed of. In support he bas relied on a decision M/s. Bharat Trading Co. He is abundantly clear from this provision that launching of prosecution has no bearing in a proceeding u/s. 6a. Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that bar of jurisdiction has proceeded in Sec. 6e operates so long a confiscation proceeding is not disposed of. In support he bas relied on a decision M/s. Bharat Trading Co. v. State of Assam1 in the said Single Bench decision of Gauhati High Court which was held that Sec. 6e by which exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the Collector or the judicial authority to make an order as to possession, delivery etc. operates only during the pendency of the confiscation proceeding made u/s. 6a or appeal u/s. 6c. The court noted that because of section 1oe by which every offence punishable under the Act was given power to seize gave rise to a conflict of jurisdiction, between the Collector or the appellate authority u/s. 6c and the Criminal court about the possession and disposal of essential commodity seized. Ultimately the court held that this disenabling provision of Sec. 6e of the E. C. Act operates in a limited field and during the pendency of a confiscation proceeding or the appeal. It may be noted that provisions of Sec. 6f has overriding effect because it has been clearly indicated that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force the mandate of the section will operate. Therefore, when the Collector was considering a confiscation proceeding u/s. 6a the Collector was the proper authority to pass an order with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the seized property. The Collector failed to consider that sec. 6e has over riding effect. Since section 6e has overriding effect it is not open to the Collector to consider where an order on delivery, disposal or distribution of seized property has to he made by the Special Judge before whom a prosecution is pending u/s. 7 (1 ). At the time of disposal of the proceeding 6a the Collector is the proper authority to pass an order regarding possession, disposal etc. of the seized commodity. ( 5 ) IN the other application preferred by the State it has been urged that in the show cause filed by the opposite party in that application clearly took a defence that no contravention of Para 4 of the said order has been made. of the seized commodity. ( 5 ) IN the other application preferred by the State it has been urged that in the show cause filed by the opposite party in that application clearly took a defence that no contravention of Para 4 of the said order has been made. Therefore, even if contravention of Para 4 was not alleged in the notice u/s 6b there was no scope of any prejudice being caused to the opposite party. Therefore, the learned Collector has erred in refusing to consider the allegation if Para 4 of the said order hag been violated. To examine the merit of the submission made by Mr. Pal a glance at section 6b necessary. Section 6b (1) makes it compulsory to serve a notice on the owner of essential commodity or the person from whom it is seized to give a notice in writing and by the said notice he would be informed of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the said commodities and he must be given an opportunity of making a representation in writing against the grounds of confiscation. This provision of section 6b is mandatory in nature. The requirement of mentioning the grounds in the notice is compulsory and the owner or the person from whom the essential commodities seized will give a representation in writing in respect of the grounds of confiscation made out in the said notice. It is correct that the opposite party in the said revisional application has clearly stated that they have not violated Para 4 of the said order the Collector did not enter into the merit of this allegation an according to him he cannot consider it as it was not mentioned in the notice u/s. 6b. I do not find any thing wrong in the conclusions arrived at by the Collector in this case Mr. Pal urged that the investigating authority is only to report the seizure. The ground of seizure has to be ascertained by the Collector, from the facts, which led to the seizure of the goods. Investigating authority is not required to make any prayer in respect of which seized goods are liable to confiscation. Since all the materials were before the learned Collector he ought to have taken into consideration the fact of violation of paragraph 4. Investigating authority is not required to make any prayer in respect of which seized goods are liable to confiscation. Since all the materials were before the learned Collector he ought to have taken into consideration the fact of violation of paragraph 4. Even if this ground was not taken in the first notice he ought to have asked the other side to show cause on this ground and thereafter decide the same. As it appears the Collector is an authority established under the law for the purpose of Sec. 6a. It is not for him to decide on what grounds the essential commodities are liable to confiscation. It is the prosecuting agency who will have to make the specific prayer before the Collector stating the grounds clearly on which the goods are liable to be confiscated. In my view the Collector is not to error in refusing to consider the grounds of violation of paragraph 4 of the said order. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, revisional application No. 794 succeeds and 905 fails. It is accordingly directed that the Collector. Howrah do pass an order regarding returns of the seized articles to the owner thereof or to the person from whom seized on furnishing a bond to his satisfaction to the extent of the value of the goods so seized and on condition that in the event of any forfeiture order made by the Special Judge in the pending case the bond will forfeit to the State. These two applications are accordingly disposed of. Let a copy of this judgment be sent down to the Collector Howrah by Special Messenger if the cost is deposited within three days. Order accordingly