Judgment L.P.N.SHAHDEO, J. 1. This criminal writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 4-8-1986 passed by the respondent No. 2 confiscating 2680 tins of vanaspati and edible oil in confiscation case No.I.R. 28/81-82 (Annexure 8). 2. It is the admitted position that the petitioner is a licensee under the Bihar Edible Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1968 and the Bihar Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order, 1967. His licence No. is 25/73 and 25/74 respectively. 3. The allegation is that on 18-4-1981, in course of business, the business premises of M/s. Ramesh & Company was inspected by the Supply Authorities and it was allegedly found that there were shortage of 8 (sic) tins of vanaspati oil and one tin each of refined oil and mustard oil were found in excess. In the whole stock containing 2680 tins of refined groundnut (sic) and 307 tins of vanaspati and also 264 tins of mustard oil were seized by the inspecting authorities. 4. It appears that thereafter, a regular F.I.R. was lodged making allegation with regard to the excess and shortage of the edible oils and vanaspati oil. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet and, thereafter, on the report, confiscation proceeding was initated under Section 6-A of E. C. Act. Show cause notice was issued which was filed. In show cause the petitioner has asserted that the notice is vague and he cannot file effective show cause and, as such, he reserved his right to file additional show cause when the detailed facts are available. This means that the petitioner was handicapped to file effective show cause for want of all the details of allegations of the contravention or violation for which vision of order was intended to be passed for confiscation of the essential articles against him. Thereafter, the impugned order confiscating the entire vanaspati and edible oils was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranch on 4-8-1986. 5. Mr. G. C. Bharuka assisted by Mr. P. D. Agrawal appearing for the petitioner confined his argument on two grounds; first ground is that the notice issued under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities (E. C. Act), Act is invalid as it is vague. 5. Mr. G. C. Bharuka assisted by Mr. P. D. Agrawal appearing for the petitioner confined his argument on two grounds; first ground is that the notice issued under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities (E. C. Act), Act is invalid as it is vague. His second argument is that according to Clause (9) of Section 6-A of Bihar Amendment Act, as amended by Act 9 of 1978, the confiscation proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner- cum-Collector, is a judicial proceeding and the Court discharging such function is deemed to be a Court and therefore, such Court was to act and pass legal order on the basis of legal evidence available on record. 6. Mr. R. K. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that in this case there has been substantial compliance of the issue of show cause notice and any defect or irregularity in the issue of notice to show cause, cannot be characterised as a vital illegality which may render the confiscation order itself invalid, in view of clause (3) of Section 6-B of the E. C. Act. 7. The purpose of issue of notice is to acquaint the person against whom some order of civil consequences is likely to be passed and he is required to meet those allegations. This shows that the notice issued must give out in detail, the allegations made against the person against whom such notice is issued. 8. In this case the notice issued is Annexure 1 which simply says that the business premises were inspected by the Supply Department on 18-4-1981 and "serious irregularities were detected by them in maintenance of the stock resulting into violation of the provisions of Bihar Edible Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1986. 2680 tins of vanaspati and edible oils have been seized." This is the nature of the notice issued. This notice does not make out reference of various irregularities, type of it, the nature of it, quantity of them and in what manner it was serious and what was the actual violation. This type of notice is not contemplated under Section 6-B of the E. C Act. 9. Section 6-B of the E. C Act has made an embargo on the power of the Collector to confiscate without any notice. This type of notice is not contemplated under Section 6-B of the E. C Act. 9. Section 6-B of the E. C Act has made an embargo on the power of the Collector to confiscate without any notice. Therefore, issue of notice is a mandatory provision which in term, means that the notice must contain material fact which the person proceeded or the opposite party is required to answer. A vague notice, therefore, cannot serve the very purpose of it as has been stated under Section 6-B of the E. C. Act. 10. This matter has been further clarified in this Section (6-B) itself under Clause (a) which reads as follows : "A notice in writing informing him of the ground on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity......or other conveyance." 11. Therefore, Section 6-B (a) excludes any vague type of notice. The notice must (be in detail giving particular material facts and on the basis of such material facts it must convey sufficient information to the person concerned so that he may file an effective show cause. 12. In this case the notice is completely vague, speaks only about the serious irregularities in maintenance of stock. It does not speak of the nature of irregularities or the violation committed specifically in respect of the edible oils. This type of notice cannot serve the purpose nor convey the material facts for giving effective representation or show cause. 13. In this connection the argument that Clause (3) of Section 6-B of the Act will come into play and remove any defect or irregularity found in the notice, cannot he of any assistance. In Clause (3) itself, it is clearly mentioned that if such notice is substantially complied with. The word "substantially complied with" is significant and meaningful. Substantial compliance does not include vague compliance. Substantial compliance means that it must give material facts and if there is any defect in giving some detailed description, that defect may be ignored. But if there is notice in the shape that "you have committed serious irregularities" without indicating the nature of those irregularities, it cannot termed as substantial compliance of issuing the notice in writing informing the person concerned of the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the essential commodities. Therefore, on plain reading of Section 6-B of the Act. But if there is notice in the shape that "you have committed serious irregularities" without indicating the nature of those irregularities, it cannot termed as substantial compliance of issuing the notice in writing informing the person concerned of the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the essential commodities. Therefore, on plain reading of Section 6-B of the Act. the defect or the irregularities cannot be cured if there is no substantial compliance of the requirements of issuing notice giving material facts or particulars of the allegations. 14. Therefore, the notice which was the basis of starting the confiscation proceeding, when appears to be vague, the confiscation proceeding itself has become invalid for want of substantial compliance. 15. This Court had the occasion to examine this matter. In a case reported in 1982 PLJR 304, it was held that it is pertinent that an order of confiscation cannot be based on the facts which have not been mentioned in the notice and, therefore, it was held that for the purpose of that case everything which was not in the notice, was found to be extraneous. This means that the ground on which the proposed confiscation is intended to be passed, must be clearly stated and subsequently the confiscating Court is confined to decide only in respect of those grounds. This shows that any other ground will be extraneous to that notice and will be invalid if the confiscation is based on that ground alone. 16. This ruling gives emphasis on the point that the notice must contain all material facts or allegations. In an another case reported in Jhabarmal Mukin V/s. State of Bihar and others. 1984 PLJR 568=1984 East Cr C 50, a Division Bench of this Court held that the confiscation was invalid because the requirements of Section 6-B of the E. C. Act was not mentioned in the notice. It was held that on plain reading sub-section (3) is applicable to cases where there has been a substantial compliance. This shows that substantial compliance of the notice under Section 6-B of the Act is a must. The question of defect or irregularity will come sub-sequently. When the notice itself has not been substantially complied with as required under Section 6-B (a) of the Act, there is no question that any defect or irregularity can be ignored under sub-section (3) of Section 6-B of the Act. 17. The question of defect or irregularity will come sub-sequently. When the notice itself has not been substantially complied with as required under Section 6-B (a) of the Act, there is no question that any defect or irregularity can be ignored under sub-section (3) of Section 6-B of the Act. 17. In another case reported in M/s Md. Ayub Bismillah Rice and Oil Mills V/s. Collector, West Charnparan and others, 1977 BBCJ 151 , it was held that if a notice is issued without giving any details of violation of the Licencing, Order, such type of notice shall not fulfil the requirements of Section 6-B of the Act. It was pointed out that the notice issued must set out in detail the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the essential commodities. 18. Therefore, on consideration of the aforesaid rulings, it can safely be concluded that the requirement to give notice under Section 6-B of the Act is not an idle formality but it must give all such grounds in the notice itself on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity. 19. In this case the notice issued does not meet the requirements of law as required under Section 6-B of the Act. The vagueness and lack of material facts or the material grounds on which the essential commodity is required to be confiscated, must be clearly indicated in the notice without which the notice itself will become invalid and if the notice is invalid, the confiscation order passed on the basis of such type of notice, must be deemed to be invalid. 20. The second argument advanced by Mr. Bharuka is equally important and has substance. The Bihar Amendment, referred to above, has clearly made such proceeding a judicial proceeding and both the forums have been declared to be Court. It is better to quote the Bihar Amendment of Section 6-A. Sub-section (9) reads as follows : "All inquiries and proceedings under this Act before the Collector and the appellate authority, shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding and while discharging function under this section the Collector and the appellate authority shall be deemed to be a Court." 21. This shows that under the mandate of the law the proceeding before the Collector and that of the appellate authority have been included within the meaning of a Judicial proceeding of a Court. This shows that under the mandate of the law the proceeding before the Collector and that of the appellate authority have been included within the meaning of a Judicial proceeding of a Court. A Judicial Court, therefore, is required to follow certain methods and regulations prescribed under the Evidence Act. Section 1 of the Evidence Act speaks of its scope of application. It applies to all judicial proceeding in or before any Court. Therefore, when the Act has declared such proceeding to be of a Court, the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, is automatically attracted and made applicable to such nature of proceeding. The consequence of the application of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, has made it clear that the Collector or the appellate authority is required to dispose of such judicial proceeding on the basis of legal evidence available on record. In a case where notice was issued under Section 6-B of the Act and the concerned person has filed show cause, in which he has denied all the allegations, then the question is as to whether the Collector is competent to dispose of that proceeding on the basis of show cause and the initial notice. In view of Bihar Amendment introduced in Clause (9) of Section 6-B of the Act, the obvious answer would be that he cannot do so. When there is a assertion and denial, he is to decide the case on the basis of some legal evidence or affidavits but he need not follow the details of Evidence Act, as it is summary procedure. But without having some evidence, he cannot dispose of that proceeding. 22. In that event the Collector is required to hold an inquiry in accordance with law to determine and dispose of that proceeding on the basis of some legal evidence adduced by each of the parties giving them such opportunity for the same. 23. This view is further supported by a Division Bench ruling reported in Dharmadeo Yadav and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1989 Bihar Revenue and Labour Journal, 149, where the Bench has found that the Collector had no option in that circumstance but to make inquiry in the confiscation proceeding and, thereafter, only he can finally dispose of the same. In an inquiry both the parties should be allowed to lead evidence which may be documentary or oral in shape or affidavit or otherwise. 24. Therefore, it is settled that in case of denial with respect to the allegations set out against the concerned person, the confiscation Court is to follow the legal procedure prescribed as it is a Court and this proceeding is a judicial one and, thereafter, on the basis of the evidence adduced by each of the parties, he is required to dispose of that proceeding. 25. In this case the petitioner has filed show cause, clearly denying the allegation although. show cause notice was vague and has asserted that he will file additional show cause when further materials are available or disclosed but, in substance, has refuted all the allegations levelled against him. 26. It may be useful to note here that the only allegation was that he had committed "serious irregularity" which he could have denied by saying that he has not committed any serious irregularity and, in fact, he has done so He has reserved his right to file additional show cause if further materials are available. The allegation anl denial, therefore, had left no option to the Collector but to hold an inquiry with respect to the allegation made against him which the petitioner denied, for disposing of that proceeding in a legal manner. 27. It is the admitted position that the Collector has not held any inquiry in this case nor any evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecuting party to sustain the allegation and, therefore, the order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector. without any; legal evidence before him, is wholly erroneous and must be held to be invalid from the beginning to the end which means that the whole proceeding was void ab initio. 28. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this criminal writ application is allowed. The impugned order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector. Ranchi is hereby quashed. The petitioner is discharged from the liability of the bond.