DIBYENDU BHUSAN DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) ORDER dated January 20, 1997 passed by the Collector under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Malda in confiscation case No. 1/97 forms the subject-matter of challenge in the instant revisional application that has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this confiscation case may in substance be stated as follows :on 26-12-96, at about 17. 15 hours, acting on an information to the effect that the present petitioner was carrying on a business of several essential commodities and sending those to Bangladesh and also the information to the effect that a truck was being loaded with wheat from the godown of the present petitioner, the O. C. Mathabari Out Post P. S. Kalaiachak diarised the information under Mathabari O. P. being G. D. entry No. 527, dated 26-12-96 and accompanied by other police officials raided the said godown of the present petitioner. At the time of raid a truck bearing No. W. B. 65/1095 was being loaded with wheat in front of the godown. The petitioner was then present and on interrogation it was ascertained that he was sending the wheat by that truck to one Murli Agarwala of Kalaiachak who had already paid the price thereof. On being asked by the raiding party the petitioner failed to produce any stock register, sale register, cash memo, price list and stock board or any other valid document for dealing in wheat. The truck was seized. It was loaded with 64 bagful of wheat containing 77 quintal 22 Kgs. of wheat. The said wheat was also seized. The said godown was also searched and 38 bagful of Bazra weighing about 80 Kgs. each and 2 bagful of Barley weighing about 80 Kgs. each were found inside the godown and for the said two commodities no document as in the case of seized wheat could be produced by the petitioner on being asked for by the raiding party. The said Bazra and Barley were then seized along with other measuring instruments. It transpired during the interrogation of the petitioner that he has got another godown on the rear side of the building. The said Bazra and Barley were then seized along with other measuring instruments. It transpired during the interrogation of the petitioner that he has got another godown on the rear side of the building. The said godown was then under lock and key and the petitioner on being asked could not produce the key, as a result of which, the raiding party had to break open the lock of that godown. That godown was also searched and the search led to recovery of 16 bagful of sugar each containing 80 Kgs. , 11 bagful of Khesaridalcontaining 50 Kgs. each and 8 bags of Khansari containing 100 Kgs. each. No license could be produced by the petitioner for such huge stock of sugar and pulses. The petitioner did not also maintain any books of account and also failed to produce any price list or board. The sugar and pulses were accordingly seized. ( 3 ) ON the aforesaid allegations, Kaliachak P. S. Case No. 193/96, dated 27-12-96 was registered against the present petitioner and the driver of the seized truck under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and the said case is still under investigation. ( 4 ) ONE Satyabrata Chakraborty, S. I. D. E. O. Kaliachak made a prayer before the Collector for confiscation of the sezied commodities under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and also for interim sale thereof under Section 6-A (2) of the Act. On the basis of this prayer, Confiscation Case No. 197 was initiated. The Collector was prima facie of the opinion that there was violation of the provisions of two Control Orders, namely, West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and West Bengal Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1980. By order dated 2-1-97 the Collector accordingly issued notice upon the petitioner for showing cause. Notice to show casuse was also ordered to be issued against the owner of the truck as to why it shall not be confiscated. The Collector was also of the view that the seized commodities were subject to speedy and natural decay. He accordingly fixed 15-1-97 as the date of hearing in the presence of the accused-petitioner. Finally the matter came up for hearing before the Collector on January 20, 1997 and by order dated 20-1-97 the ld. The Collector was also of the view that the seized commodities were subject to speedy and natural decay. He accordingly fixed 15-1-97 as the date of hearing in the presence of the accused-petitioner. Finally the matter came up for hearing before the Collector on January 20, 1997 and by order dated 20-1-97 the ld. Collector released the seized truck on payment of fine and also on a bond. By the selfsame order the Collector directed the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, to lift the seized commodities from the custody of the respective zimmadars and sell them as per prevailing market price and produce the challan showing deposit of the sale proceed. ( 5 ) MR. Dey, appearing for the petitioner, challenges the legality of the impugned order on the following grounds. First, it is urged that the West Bengal Wheat and Wheat Products (Licensing, Control and Prohibition of Certain Classes of Commercial Transaction) Order, 1973 stands rescinded by the West Bengal Government with effect from 1986 and as such there could be no violation of that particular Control Order for unlicensed dealing in wheat at the material point of time ( 6 ) IT is next contended by Mr. Dey that according to the F. I. R. and the preliminary order that was passed by the learned Collectord on 2-1-97 in the confiscation proceeding, there has been violation of only two Control Orders, namely, West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and the West Bengal Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1980. So far as the wheat is concerned it is submitted that although it is an essential commodity within the meaning of West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, the petitioner could not violate the provision of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 of the said Control Order in relation to wheat particularly when the said wheat was seized from the truck parked in front of godown and not from the godown itself. In this connection, he relies on a Division Bench decision of our High Court reported in 1990 (1) CHN 1 , Ajit Singh Mago v. State of West Bengal. ( 7 ) SO far as Bazra and Barley are concerned, Mr. In this connection, he relies on a Division Bench decision of our High Court reported in 1990 (1) CHN 1 , Ajit Singh Mago v. State of West Bengal. ( 7 ) SO far as Bazra and Barley are concerned, Mr. De submitted that they do not fall within the schedule of West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order and as such the question of violation of that order with reference to Bazra and Barley could not arise at all. ( 8 ) REGARDING sugar, admittedly the quantity seized far exceeded the ceiling that has been prescribed by the West Bengal Sugar Dealer Licensing Order, 1980 and Mr. De was frank enough to concede this much that so far the sugar is concerned there could be violation of relevant Sugar Control Order REFERRED TO above because of unlicensed stock beyond the prescribed ceiling. ( 9 ) REGARDING Pulses, Mr. De submitted that since the quantity seized was also beyond the ceiling of the prescribed West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978, a licensee would be required for storing the said quantity of pulses within the meaning of the said Control Order. But then violation of this particular Control Order has nowhere been complained of by the prosecution uptil now. Moreover, it is submitted that there could be no contravention of the two Control Orders regarding sugar and pulses as REFERRED TO above in respect of the quantities which fall within the respective ceiling limits and as such no confiscation proceeding could be initiated in respect of the entire quantities of sugar and pulses that were seized. In this regard, a single Bench decision of our High Court in the case of Shyam Sundar Khaitan v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1982 (2) CHN 279, has been relied upon. ( 10 ) THE principal ground on which Mr. De assails the legality of the impugned order is that there was violation of principles of natural justice by reason of the fact that no notice was at all served upon the petitioner before the Collector passed the impugned order of sale of the seized commodities under Section 6-A (2) of the Act and as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed on that score. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench decision of our High Court reported in 1980 (1) CHN 338 (In Re : Swadeshi Sugar Supplies ). ( 11 ) MR. Chakraborty appearing for the State sought to refute all the contentions that were put forward on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Chakraborty submits that there was violation of paragraph 3 (2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 in relation to Wheat, Bazra and Barley and that there was also violation of Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1980 with regard to sugar and that there was also violation of West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978, with regard to Khesaridal. ( 12 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Chakraborty, the case is still under investigation and as such this Court is not called upon to decide even prima facie the question as to whether there was any violation of any of the Control Orders REFERRED TO in the confiscation proceeding or in the F. I. R. ( 13 ) IT is urged by Mr. Chakraborty that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice by reasons of non-service of notice upon the accused-petitioner, because Section 6-A (2) does not make it obligatory on the part of the Collector to give a notice before he passes the order for interim sale, in case the commodity in question is subject to speedy and natural decay. ( 14 ) MR. Chakraborty relies on a Supreme Court decision in the case of Shambhu Doyal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1990 C Cr LR (SC) 147. Mr. Chakraborty also draws my attention to the impugned order which clearly suggests that the accused-petitioner was very much present being represented by his lawyer before the Collector at the time the Collector passed the impugned order of interim sale on 20-1-97. In other words, according to Mr. Chakraborty, there could be no violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned order cannot be faulted by reasons of the proposition of law that has been laid down by this Court in Swadeshi Sugar Supplies case reported in 1980 (1) CHN 338. In other words, according to Mr. Chakraborty, there could be no violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned order cannot be faulted by reasons of the proposition of law that has been laid down by this Court in Swadeshi Sugar Supplies case reported in 1980 (1) CHN 338. ( 15 ) THUS the point for my decision would be as to whether the impugned order deserves to be interfered with in exercise of this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 16 ) THE lower Court record brings out the fact that before the impugned order was passed, the learned Collector passed an order dated 2-1-97 directing issuance of notice to show cause upon the accused-petitioner. From a communication addressed by the concerned D. E. O. on 9-1-97 to the Collector, it would appear that in response to the memo that was sent to him by the Collector for causing service of notice upon the accused-petitioner, the D. E. O. submitted that the petitioner was then in jail custody and accordingly prayed before the Collector that the jail authority be directed for causing service of notice. There is nothing in the record to show that in pursuance of this communication the said notice was at all sent to the jail authority for causing service upon the accused-petitioner. As the record stands, it does not show service of any prior notice upon the accused-petitioner before the Collector proceeded to pass the impugned order for interim sale of the seized articles. In the case of Swadeshi Sugar Supplies (supra), Their Lordships held that, although not expressly mentioned, when the Collector exercised power under Section 6a (2), principles of natural justice require that a person whose right to property is being affected be given an opportunity of having his say. This decision does nowhere obligate the Collector to give a specific notice in this behalf. As such non-service of notice cannot be fatal to the prosecution particularly when the impugned order itself along with vakalatnama and the Hazira dated 20-1-97 conclusively bear out the fact that the petitioner as well as his lawyer were very much present before the Collector at the time when the matter came up for hearing and the impugned order was passed. As such, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice have been violated in this case. As such, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice have been violated in this case. The decision in Swadeshi Sugar Supplies cannot, therefore, be of any avail to the petitioner in assailing the legality of the impugned order so far as it directed sale of the interim sale of the seized commodities. ( 17 ) IN the case of Shambhu Dayal Agarwala, 1990 C Cr LR (SC) 147, the Supreme Court observed that the scheme of Sections 6-A, 6-B and 6-C make it clear that after the essential commodity is seized and the same is inspected by the concerned Collector, the later has to decide, after complying with the procedure set out in Section 6-B, whether or not to confiscate the essential commodity. According to the Supreme Court, since the procedure laid down in Sec-tion 6-B is time consuming, the Collector has been given special power to sell the essential commodity as stated in sub-section (2) of Section 6-A, if it is subject to speedy and natural decay. The Supreme Court further observed that if the Collector decides not to confiscate the commodity, the commodity has to be returned to the owner or person from whom it was seized and that if in the meantime it is sold in exercise of power under Section 6-A (2), the price of the commodity has to be paid as provided by sub-section (3) of Section 6-A. Having regard to the scheme, object and purpose of the Act and the mischief it seeks to guard against, the Supreme Court held that there could be no question of releasing the commodity in the sense of returning it to the owner or person from whom it was seized even before the proceeding for confiscation stood completed and before the termination of the prosecution in the acquittal of the offender. In the instant case, confiscation proceeding is still pending disposal and the learned Collector has not yet decided finally the question whether the seized commodities are or are not liable to be confiscated. In the instant case, confiscation proceeding is still pending disposal and the learned Collector has not yet decided finally the question whether the seized commodities are or are not liable to be confiscated. What he has done by the impugned order is directing an interim sale of the seized commodities only because of the fact that they are subject to speedy and natural decay and in the event of the petitioner succeeding in the confiscation proceeding or in the prosecution that has been launched against him, he would not be irreparably prejudiced because of the fact that the commodities have been ordered to be sold at the prevailing market rate and the sale proceed would remain deposited with the treasury so that the petitioner would find no difficulty in getting back the sale proceeds. It appears from the lower Court record that in pursuance of the impugned order, the sugar has already been sold and the sale proceeds are lying deposited under a challan dated 18-2-97. It appears from the record that the respective zimmadars of the other seized commodities did not readily comply with the direction for production of the seized commodities as per terms of the zimmanama on the basis of which they took them in their custody immediately after the seizure was effected and as a result the petitioner got requisite time to move this Court on 17-2-97 and obtain an interim stay of operation of the impugned order. ( 18 ) THE question whether there has been or has not been any violation of any of the Control Orders REFERRED TO above does not really arise for a decision by this Court at this stage and it is accordingly made clear that the Collector should not be influenced by any observation that might have been made by this Court in that aspect of the matter. The Collector is, indeed, free to decide whether there has been violation of any of the Control Orders or not and whether he will confiscate any of the seized commodities or not. The Collector is, indeed, free to decide whether there has been violation of any of the Control Orders or not and whether he will confiscate any of the seized commodities or not. As such, the question whether the Division Bench decision of our High Court in Ajit Singh Mago v. State of West Bengal or the single Bench decision of our High Court in Shyam Sundar Khaitan (supra) would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case is a matter which does not call for any decision by this Court at this stage. For the present, it must be said that the finding of the Collector to the effect that the seized commodities is subject to natural and speedy decay has not at all been challenged on behalf of the petitioner. The fact also remains that the present petitioner was present before the Collector along with his Advocate and got an opportunity of being heard at the time when the Collector decided to pass the impugned order for interim sale of the seized commodities. ( 19 ) THAT being so, the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as contended on behalf of the petitioner. Indeed, there is virtually no good ground for interference with the impugned order so far as it relates to interim sale of the seized commodities. The revisional application accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.