JUDGEMENT 1. The gravaman of petitioner is that non-issue of a show cause notice as per Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') vitiates the impugned order of confiscation (Annexure-B) and of the appellate order, dated 22-1-1987 (Annexure-A). 2. Tahsildar, Hiriyur, reported to Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, on 17-5-1985 the illegal hoarding of 80 bags ground-nut seeds each weighing 85 Kgs and 20 bags of groundnut each weighing 35 Kgs, by the petitioner, without possessing necessary licence under the Karnataka Edible Oil Seeds Licensing Order, 1977 and produced the seized commodity. Deputy Commissioner made an interim order for disposal of the seized commodity, through public auction. 3. Petitioner having come to know of the order offered his explanation on 7th June 1981. The explanation was that he commenced the business in anticipation of the grant of licence as he had already made necessary application to the concerned authority for grant of licence and accordingly purchased the seized commodity from M/s. Bhargali and Co., and M/s. Ananthaiah. He pleaded that consideration was paid only after grant of licence on 27-5-1985 and stocks were taken to register subsequently though purchase was earlier and under those circumstances committed no offence warranting confiscation and matter be viewed leniently. 4. Second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, in his order, dated 18th June, 1985 after holding that there was no justification to hoard essential commodities (edible oil seeds) in anticipation of grant of licence and storing of edible oils exceeding 30 quintals without licence contravened Karnataka Edible Oil Seeds Dealers Licensing Order, 1977 ordered confiscation. The said order has been confirmed in appeal by the State Government. 5. Sri C.N. Kamath, learned counsel for petitioner, while challenging the validity of these orders submitted that as confiscation has not been preceded by a show cause notice as contemplated under Section 6(B) of the Act, impugned orders must be declared as illegal and void. In support of this contention, he relied on a decision of this Court in Menur Madhava v. State of Mysore, (1970) 1 Mys LJ 143 and a decision in Prem Ratan Mall v. Collector, Ganjam, 1978 Cri LJ 599 (Orissa). 6. For proper appreciation, it is necessary to extract both Sections 6-A(1) and 6-B of the Act and they read thus :- "6A. 6. For proper appreciation, it is necessary to extract both Sections 6-A(1) and 6-B of the Act and they read thus :- "6A. Confiscation of essential commodity.- (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 unreasonable delay, be made to the Collector of the district of the Presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, 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 seized; (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and (c) any animal, vehicle or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity. Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act no food-grains or edible oil seeds seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized food-grains or edible oil seeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this Section." "6-B. Issue of a show cause notice before confiscation of essential commodity. - (1) No order confiscating any essential commodity, package, covering receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under Section 6A, unless the owner of such essential commodity, package, covering receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance of the persons from whom it is seized - (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity, package, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance; (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." Section 6(A)(1) except conferring power of Deputy Commissioner to confiscate a seized commodity for breach of orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act has not provided any machinery for conduct of an enquiry. Section 6(B) provides the procedure viz., issue of a show cause notice in writing informing the grounds on which he proposes to confiscate the commodity; to provide an opportunity of making representation in writing within a reasonable time and to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Though they are numerically numbered as two Sections, the procedure prescribed under Section 6(B) forms part of an enquiry to be held under Section 6A(1) of the Act. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner having come to know of the interim order made by the Deputy Commissioner, volunteered and offered his explanation on 7th June 1985 which reads thus :- "2. The Industry of the respondent is recently commenced and in anticipation of the grant of licence and as the application for the grant had already been filed, the respondent entered into a contract with M/s. Bargali and Co., of Ranebennur for the purchase of 145 bags of groundnuts (with shells) which resulted in 37 bags of ground nut seeds and each bag weighed 29 quintals and 60 Kgs. He also contracted with M/s. S. Ananthaiah of Chinnachorugiri respectively for the purchase of 20 bags of seeds and 8 bags of nuts and 23 bags of seeds and 10 bags of nuts respectively and in pursuance of those contracts, he had brought the bags and dumped in his premises. The price in respect of the goods dumped has not yet been paid. These stocks had not been transacted in any manner by the respondent. After the grant of licence on 27-5-85 the respondent has taken this to account and to the stock register maintained as per the conditions of the Licence. 3. to 4. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 5. Therefore the respondent may be absolved from his liability for the contravention alleged in the interest of justice." Unlike Sub-Section (2) of Section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Act does not contemplate providing of an opportunity or for issue of a show cause notice after recording a finding of guilt. to 4. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 5. Therefore the respondent may be absolved from his liability for the contravention alleged in the interest of justice." Unlike Sub-Section (2) of Section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Act does not contemplate providing of an opportunity or for issue of a show cause notice after recording a finding of guilt. In this view, there is no merit in the submission of Sri Kamath that a show cause notice was necessary after a provisional decision by the Deputy Commissioner to confiscate the commodity seized the Deputy Commissioner has, in fact, in the impugned order stated that even before issue of a show cause notice from his office, petitioner has appeared and given his explanation. His conduct tantamounts to acquiescence and has not resulted in prejudice. Deputy Commissioner taking into consideration half-hearted admission of guilt in the explanation offered ordered confiscation. The procedure prescribed in Section 6(B) of the Act, such as, issue of show cause notice inviting objections and of providing opportunity of hearing forms integral part of an enquiry to be held under Section 6(A) of the Act and is not distinct and separate warranting issue of a second show cause notice. 8. The decision of this Court in Menur Madhava v. State of Mysore, 1970 1 Mys LJ 143 which reads thus :- "An order of confiscation under S.6A must be preceded by the issue of a show cause notice as required by S.6B of the Act. The notice should inform the owner of the foodgrains or the person from whom they were seized the grounds on which it was proposed to make the confiscation. It is further necessary that the Deputy Commissioner should give the person to whom the notice is issued an opportunity of making a representation in writing within a reasonable time to be specified and an additional opportunity of being heard in the matter." has not dealt with this aspect except stating that a show cause notice is necessary. Even the decision of the Orissa High Court referred to above has not gone to the extent of supporting the contention canvassed for the petitioner except stating that the principles of natural justice as incorporated in Section 6(B) of the Act should be adhered to. Undisputedly, a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing are required to be provided before ordering confiscation. Undisputedly, a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing are required to be provided before ordering confiscation. As already indicated, the petitioner himself voluntarily appeared before issue of a show cause notice and pleaded for sympathetic consideration. Even after the offer of explanation, as extracted above, insistence for issue of show cause notice could only be a farce and an empty formality. Hence, I find no merit and the Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.