JUDGMENT 1. - Instant revision impugns the order dated July 19, 1995 of the State Appellate Committee (for short the SAC) constituted under Section 6 C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act) whereby the order dated December 26, 1994 of the Collector Bundi was confirmed and appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Brief resume of the facts is that on the basis of a complaint of the District Supply Officer Bundi, a notice under Section 6A of the Act was issued by the Collector Bundi to the petitioner. A detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner. The Collector vide order dated December 26, 1994 passed an order of confiscation of 100 quintals of mustard. The petitioner preferred appeal before the SAC assailing the order of the Collector but the appeal was dismissed as indicated hereinabove. 3. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully scanned the record. 4. Admittedly the petitioner firm is the producer of edible oils and had a licence under the provisions of 'Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order 1980 (for short the 'Order 1980'). The D.S.O. Bundi inspected the premises of the petitioner firm on June 16, 1994 and seized 203 quintals of mustard of the petitioner firm lying at shop No. 6 of Krishi Upaj Mandi on the ground that the shop was not entered in the licence of the petitioner firm as place for storage. The D.S.O. was of the view that petitioner firm violated condition No. 2-B of the licence. The mustard however found entered in the stock register of the petitioner firm. 5. The petitioner firm in the reply of the show cause notice stated that on June 14, 1994 Babulal Jain, the partner of the petitioner firm intimated the Licensing Authority i.e. Tehsildar Bundi by UPC about shop No. 6. The shop No. 6 was not for storage but was only for transit purpose. The mustard was purchased on June 13, 1994 and because of non-availability of transportation on June 14. and June 15, 1994 the mustard was lying in shop No. 6. 6. The shop No. 6 was not for storage but was only for transit purpose. The mustard was purchased on June 13, 1994 and because of non-availability of transportation on June 14. and June 15, 1994 the mustard was lying in shop No. 6. 6. In clause 2(b) of the Terms and Conditions' of Order 1980, following note is appended - "Note - If the licensee intends to store the trade ai tides in places other than those specified above, he shall give intention in writing to the Licensing Authority within a period of seventy two hours of actually storing of these trade articles therein " The partner of the petitioner firm Babu Lal Jain filed his affidavit alongwith the receipt of UPC and it was incumbent upon the Collector Bundi to initiate inquiry into the matter but without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm an order of confiscation of 100 quintal of mustard was passed. 7. The Collector while passing the order dated December 26, 1994, ignored the reply of the petitioner firm and did not consider the fact that the petitioner firm's partner Babulal Jain on June 14, 1994 had intimated Licensing Authority by UPC, about shop No. 6. It is rather surprising that the same Collector in another proceeding placed reliance upon the aforesaid plea of the petitioner against the order dated October 19, 1994 of D.S.O. Bundi whereby the licence of the petitioner firm was cancelled. It was observed by the learned Collector in the order dated January 2, 1995 that- " vihykaV }kjk fnukad 13-11-94 dks eky ( ljlksa ) [kjhnk tkdj d`f"k mit e.Mh lfefr lqesjxat eaMh dh nqdku ua0 6 tks fd fnukad 5-1-93 ls gh fdjk;s ij ys j[kh Fkh ij eky dks j[kk tkdj LVksj dj j[kk Fkk ysfdu muds }kjk vfrfjDr rglhynkj bUnzx<+ dks tfj;s ;w0ih0lh0 ls eky nqdku ua0 6 esa j[kus dh lwpuk fnukad 14-11-94 dks fHktokbZ xbZ Fkh tks vfr0 rglhynkj bUnzx<+ us izkIr ugha gksuk crk;k x;k gSA vihykaV }kjk ml lEcU/k esa Mkd?kj dh jlhn Hkh is'k dh xbZ gS] dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vr,o ifj.kkeLo:i vihykaV dks fgnk;r nsrs gq, vihykaV vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA " 8. Indisputably, the mustard was entered in the stock register of the petitioner firm. Indisputably, the mustard was entered in the stock register of the petitioner firm. Mandi Tax of the said goods was also paid so it cannot be inferred that it was undeclared goods. When plea of the petitioner firm was that mustard was not kept with intent to store but it was to be transported, in such a situation it could not have been presumed that it was lying in an undeclared godown. No mala fide intention can be imputed to the petitioner firm. 9. Section 6 B of the Act makes it clear that no confiscation should be made unless the competent authority heard the representation from the person affected. After hearing the matter if the Collector is satisfied that there was such a contravention, that the confiscation could be ordered. Before the stage of hearing the authorities concerned must have an open mind in regard to the matter. Satisfaction can come only after hearing the petitioner and not before that. 10. The Collector Bundi in not providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, flouted the provisions contained in Section 6B of the Act. The SAC also did not consider this legal aspect. Therefore the order of confiscation made by the Collector and confirmed by the SAC is not sustainable. 11. Resultantly, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders of Collector Bundi and SAC stand set-aside. The Collector Bundi is directed to return the seized mustard to the petitioner firm alongwith. In case the mustard had been sold under sub-section (3) of Section 6 A of the Act, the sale price shall be paid to the petitioner firm without any delay. Record of the case be sent back forthwith. *******