TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) CONFISCATION proceedings initiated as far back as in 1983 in respect of 135 bags of boiled rice seized by the authorities while in transit have been questioned in this writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent to refund the amount equivalent to the value of the seized rice but, subsequently sold in public auction under the orders issued by the respondent. A few facts in the background may at this stage be set out. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a dealer in food-grains and holds a whole sale dealer's licence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He claims to have entrusted 135 bags of boiled rice for transport from Mysore to the State of Kerala. This consignment of rice was out of the levy free stocks permitted to be transported in terms of a release certificate issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1981. ( 3 ) WHILE the lorry carrying the rice stocks was on its way to Kerala, the same was intercepted and seized by the Police sub-Inspector of Saragur Police Station resulting in filing of a charge-sheet against the driver and the cleaner of the vehicle in c. C. No. 17 of 1983. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the seizure of the stocks aforesaid the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6311 of 1983 and succeeded in securing an interim order dated 31-3-1983 directing the release of the seized rice in his favour subject to the condition that he shall not dispose of the same until further orders from this court. This order was modified at the instance of the petitioner by a subsequent order dated 11th April, 1983 to the limited extent of permitting the petitioner to dispose of the rice in question. In the meantime however, by order dated 23rd March, 1983 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, the seized rice was directed to be sold to the public at the controlled rate and the sale proceeds thereof remitted to the Revenue department's Account at Mysore. Consequently the orders passed by this Court notwithstanding the seized rice got sold through the agency of the Tahsildar in terms of the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner. Consequently the orders passed by this Court notwithstanding the seized rice got sold through the agency of the Tahsildar in terms of the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was also eventually disposed of by an order dated 18th october, 1983 reserving liberty for the Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry into the matter under Section 6-A of the essential Commodities Act for determining whether or not the petitioner had committed any violation as alleged. ( 5 ) THE criminal prosecution launched against the driver and the cleaner of the lorry finally ended in their acquittal by an order of the Sessions Judge, Mysore dated 3rd April, 1996. The learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had adduced no evidence at all to establish that the first accused namely the driver of the vehicle was a dealer or that there was any other violation of Clause 3 (a) to 3 (c) of the Karnataka Rice procurement (Levy) Order, 1981. With the conclusion of the prosecution proceedings against the driver and the cleaner as aforesaid, the petitioner appears to have made an application on llth of September, 1989 for payment of the value of the seized stocks in his capacity as the owner of the said stocks. In the said application, the petitioner referred to two earlier applications made by him on llth of January, 1984 and 30th of November, 1988 copies thereof were also enclosed by him for ready reference. In the said applications also the petitioner had made a similar prayer for the release of the value of the seized goods in his favour. Having invoked no response from the respondents, the petitioner nearly one year later filed the present writ petition for a declaration to the effect that the proceedings initiated against him under Section 6-A of the Act were unwarranted and infructuous and also for a direction for the refund of the sale proceeds of the rice in question. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. ( 7 ) EVEN though the respondent has not chosen to file any counter - affidavit to the petition, it is not denied that the prosecution proceedings initiated against the driver and the cleaner of the lorry have since ended in their acquittal, It is also not disputed that the acquittal was on merits holding in specific terms that the prosecution had not established the violation alleged against the accused persons. That being so, this appears to be a case covered specifically under Section 6-A, sub - section (3) (c) of the Essential Commodities Act which envisages the payment of the sale proceeds of any seized commodity to the owner thereof after deduction of the incidental expenses relating thereto. Section 6-A (3) may at this stage be extracted. "where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall (a) where no order of confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector, (b) where an order passed on appeal under sub- section (1) of Section 6-C so requires, or (c) 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 concerned is acquired, be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it is seized". A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions leaves no manner of doubt that even if an order of confiscation has been made in respect of the seized commodity, the sale proceeds of any such seized property shall have to be released in favour of the owner thereof in case the prosecution proceedings initiated for contravention of the order in respect of which such an order is made has ended in the acquittal of the person concerned. In the instant case, there is nothing on record before me to show that any confiscation order in terms of Section 6 - A (l) had been passed by the Deputy Commissioner at any time. Mr. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent was also unable to state whether or not the proceedings initiated against the petitioner had been taken to their logical conclusion. Mr. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent was also unable to state whether or not the proceedings initiated against the petitioner had been taken to their logical conclusion. He did not even have the requisite official record with him. In the circumstances, therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the proceedings in question even though started did not eventually result in any confiscation order. ( 8 ) THERE is substance even in the alternative submission made on behalf of the petitioner namely the proceedings which have remained inconclusive for nearly 13 years or so must be deemed to have ended on a favourable note for the petitioner. The failure on the part of the statutory authority to pass an appropriate order with reasons must give rise to a reasonable expectation in the mind of the citizen that such proceedings shall be deemed to have been concluded favourably to the citizen. Even otherwise, it is unreasonable for such proceedings to continue for over 13 years or so. The well-settled principles of law holding the citizen entitled to a speedy trial can be. reasonably extended to confiscation proceedings as well which also partake the character of penal proceedings. Assuming therefore that the proceedings have not concluded so far, I see no reason why the same should be allowed to continue. ( 9 ) IN the totality of the circumstances therefore this petition must succeed and is hereby allowed by a mandamus, the respondent is directed to release the sale proceeds of the seized 135 bags of boiled rice in favour of the petitioner after deducting the incidental expenses in making such sale auction. Since the amount in question has been withheld unreasonably, I see no reason why the petitioner should not be awarded interest on the same. I therefore, direct that the amount in question shall be payable together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 1st of October, 1989 till actual payment. The parties are however left to bear their own costs. The needful shall be done within 4 months from the date the copy of this order is produced before the respondent by the petitioner. --- *** --- .