JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - An order of confiscation of 120 bags of milled boiled rice Is in challenge in this case raising the question that no order of confiscation could be passed without a report as to seizure being made to the Collector of the district and that no order of confiscation could be passed by any officer excepting the Collector of the district. In the instant case the order of confiscation has been passed by the S. D. O. The petitioner who claims to hold a licence under the Orissa Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1954 states to have loaded the articles seized in a truck bearing registration number OAS 2827 at his godown located near opp. party No. 3 and despatched the same to the destination at Rourkela to opp. party. No. 4. The truck was inspected at Beheramal Crossing at Jharsuguda by Inspector of Supplies who recorded the statement of the driver of the truck and seized the article. Notice was issued to the petitioner on 30-3-1987 u/s 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' by the S. D. O., opp. party No. 2, to show cause against confiscation of the goods, and order was passed on 15-9-1987 by him after considering the show cause filed by this petitioner confiscating the goods. The appeal carried by the petitioner having failed, he has come before this Court. 2. It is the submission of Mr. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the report of seizure was compulsorily to be mace to the Collector before any action for confiscation could be initiated and such procedure having not been followed, the confiscation proceeding has become bad and, secondly, under the provision of the section it is only the Collector of the district who could pass the order of confiscation. While such stand is resisted by the State, it is contended by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate that the provisions of the Orissa, Rice and Paddy Procurement(ley) and Restriction on Sale and Movement Order, 83 had been violated by opp. party No. 3 who was the real consignor of the goods and had merely taken refuge behind the trade name of the petitioner so as to avoid compulsory levy of 50%. Govt. Advocate that the provisions of the Orissa, Rice and Paddy Procurement(ley) and Restriction on Sale and Movement Order, 83 had been violated by opp. party No. 3 who was the real consignor of the goods and had merely taken refuge behind the trade name of the petitioner so as to avoid compulsory levy of 50%. For an appreciation of the submissions made, the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act are necessary to be extracted : "6-A. Confiscation of foodgrains, edible oilseeds and edible oils : (1) Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made u/s 3 in relation thereto a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the Col lector of the district or the Presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether of 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 so seized ; (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found ; and (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity- xx xx xx (2) Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under Sub-section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the pubic interest so to do, he may- (i) order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for such essential commodity under this Act or tinder any other law for the time being in force ; or (ii) where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction: xx xx xx" A plain reading of the provisions shows that a report of seizure is to be made without unreasonable delay to the Collector of the district. The Collector, if he thinks it expedient, may direct the commodity so seized to be produced before him for inspection, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may direct its confiscation. The Collector, if he thinks it expedient, may direct the commodity so seized to be produced before him for inspection, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may direct its confiscation. Under Sub-section (2) if the commodity is of perishable nature or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest, the Collector may direct the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, and if no such price is fixed to be sold in public auction. It is for such reason Mr. Lal submits that since undisputedly a report of seizure has to be made to the Collector of the district, it is he alone who can direct after perusal of the report for production of the commodity for his inspection and after inspection it is he alone who can direct the confiscation. According to him, this fact is clear from the provisions of Sub-section (2) where the Collector is to direct disposal of the commodity either after receipt of the report of seizure or on inspection of the commodity. Since receipt of the report is to be by the District Collector alone, the word "or" occurring in Sub-section (2) would mean "and" and inspection as such must be by the District Collector. 3. "Collector" is defined in the Act u/s 2 (ia) the definition being inserted by the Amendment Act 92 of 1976 giving it an expended meaning by including the Additional Collector and such other officer, not below the rank of Subdivisional Officer, as may be authorised by the Collector to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Collector under the Act. Ordinarily wherever the word Collector is used in Section 6-A, as per the definition it would mean not only the Collector of the district but also such other officers who are authorised' within the scope of the definition to function as the Collector. Ordinarily wherever the word Collector is used in Section 6-A, as per the definition it would mean not only the Collector of the district but also such other officers who are authorised' within the scope of the definition to function as the Collector. It is, however the submission on behalf of the petitioner that as-the report was to be compulsorily made to the Collector of the district with the subsequent word "Collector" occurring in Sub-section (1) who is authorised to direct production of the commodity for inspection, after the inspection of the commodity so seized it is only the Collector who can direct confiscation after the inspection of the seized commodity as otherwise any other collector would have no occasion to knew about the seizure, the report having been made only to the District Collector. 4. Section 6-A directing confiscation of commodities was introduced by Act 26 of 1966. The provision originally provided for production of the seized commodity before the Collector which was amended by Act 92 of 1976 substituting production of the seized commodity before the Collector to that of making a report of seizure only to him and by the very Amendment Act the definition of "Collector as referred to above was introduced by expending the concept of the word "Collector." The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 25 of 1966 stated so far as Section 6-A is concerned that the purpose of insertion of the new provision was for confiscation of commodities by the Collector of the district. The subsequent enlargement of the definition of the word "Collector" and use of both the expressions "Collector of the district" and "Collector" in Section 6-A(1) would go against the impression that the power of confiscation was specifically reserved only for the District Collector. The provision consists of two parts ; (1) making the report and (2) directing the seized commodity to be produced for inspection and the power, if satisfaction is reached of contravention of the order, to direct confiscation of the seized commodity. Undoubtedly, so far as the first part is concerned, the 'authority contemplated is the District Collector, he alone having been so named in the provision. So far as the second part is concerned, there is no binding necessity that such function must be carried out by the same District Collector himself. Undoubtedly, so far as the first part is concerned, the 'authority contemplated is the District Collector, he alone having been so named in the provision. So far as the second part is concerned, there is no binding necessity that such function must be carried out by the same District Collector himself. An Additional Collector or a Sub-divisional Officer may also be authorised as per the definition of "Collector" to function as the Collector. Such authorisation may follow either by general or a specific order. It is possible for the Collector to authorise any of such officers to carry on the functions of inspection and confiscation if necessary, after receipt of the report. Thus after receipt of the report as to seizure, the Collector may himself, if necessary, direct production of the commodity before him for inspection and himself continue the confiscation proceeding if he so decides because of the peculiar circumstance or importance of the case, or he may after receipt of the report and perusal of the same direct that the follow-up actions may be taken by other officers, authorised by him to act as the Collector. For the same purpose it is also possible for him to pass a general order. So far as the power of directing disposal of the commodity under Sub-section (2) is concerned, the position is the same that the power can be exercised by the Collector of the district if he so desires or where on perusal of the report he directs the other authorities, the power can also be exercised by them. Giving any other meaning to the provisions would render the amendment to the definition of the word "Collector" meaningless. The conclusion so reached is also fortified by the very statements of object and reasons of the Amendment Act 92 of 1976 which was to the following effect: "In order to intensify the drive against hoarders and profiteers, it is proposed to provide that the powers of the Collector may also be exercised by an Additional Collector and such other officers not below the rank of a Subdivisional Officer, as may be authorised by the Collector. The definition of the expression "Collector" is being inserted in the Act to achieve the said object." 5. The definition of the expression "Collector" is being inserted in the Act to achieve the said object." 5. Even though such conclusion is reached, yet the petitioner is entitled to relief so far as report of seizure has not been made to the District Collector, a factual position which has not been controverted by the opposite parties. There is no denying the fact that unless a report of seizure is made, neither the District Collector nor any other officer authorised by the Collector reach the conclusion for direction to produce the commodity for inspection or its confiscation. No report admittedly having been made to the Collector, the proceeding of confiscation was invalid. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ application is allowed and the orders in Annexures-3 and 4 are set aside. The seized commodity or the sale proceeds thereof if the commodity has been sold in the meantime be released in favour of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the writ from this Court. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 300/-. J.M. Mahapatra, J. 7. I agree.