A.D.V. Reddy, J.- The short point to be determined in this case is whether on a notice issued by the District Collector initiating proceedings under section 6 (A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a finalorder of confiscation can be passed by the District Revenue Officer. On 2nd February, 1969, at about 6-30 a.m. the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Chintalapudi and his staff found eleven cart loads containing in all eighty bags of paddy being transported in the outskirts of Chintampalli village in West Godavari District. On his enquiry, it was found that they were being transported to Khammam District without a requisite permit in contravention of section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1965. The paddy was, therefore seized and further proceedings were initiated. The District Collector, West Godavari then issued a notice dated 1st March, 1969 to the persons concerned with the transport to show cause why the paddy of eighty bags seized by the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer should not be confiscated to Government under section 6-A of the Act for the contravention of section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1965. They were asked to appear before the Collector for this enquiry on 17th March, 1969. Thereafter, enquiry was held by the District Revenue Officer. West Godavari and by his order dated 21st April, 1969, relying on the alleged statements made by the cartmen at the time of seizure to the Grain Purchasing Officer and on his own personal inspection of the locality held that there was a contravention. Clause (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1965 and directed the confiscation of the stock of 80 bags of paddy of 76 Kgs. each to Government under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965. The aggrieved party filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, West Godavari and he confirmed the order of confiscation. Hence this petition to revise that order. each to Government under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965. The aggrieved party filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, West Godavari and he confirmed the order of confiscation. Hence this petition to revise that order. The only point urged in this revision case is that the District Collector is the only person authorised under section 6-A of the Act to initiate proceedings, enquire and pass any orders of confiscation or otherwise that the order passed by the District Revenue Officer is invalid as he has no powers to pass such an order, and that order is liable to be quashed and the paddy seized should be directed to be returned to the party. Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act stipulates that the essential commodities seized should be produced before the Collector of the District in which the commodities were seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of any order, the Collector, if satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of the essential commodity so seized. From this it is contended that the person who has been authorised to pass an order of confiscation is only the Collector of the District and this power cannot be delegated to any person and if there was any such delegation, the exercising of such power by virtue of that delegation is illegal. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner chose to rely on the decisions in Sambhunath v. State,1 and Harichand Aggarwal v. Batala Engineering Co. Ltd.2. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State contends that the delegation in this case has been made by virtue of a notification issued under the powers vested in the State Government under section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh District Collectors Powers Delegation Act, 1961 and therefore the exercise of the power by the Divisional Revenue Officer is valid. We do not think it necessary to determine the larger question as to whether any of the powers of the District Collector under section 6-A of the Act can be delegated to any other officer. Under section 6-A of the Act the Collector is empowered to directed confiscation if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order. Under section 6-A of the Act the Collector is empowered to directed confiscation if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order. Section 6-B prescribes the procedure to be adopted by the Collector in such proceedings which reads as follows: "6-B. No order confiscating any (essential commodity) shall he made under section 6-A unless the owner of such (essential commodity) of the person from whom (it is seized); (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the (essential commodity); (b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter." In the present case it is the Collector who has issued the notice contemplated under section 6 (B) (a) of the Act to the parties concerned to appear before him to show cause why the confiscation should not be made. The contention of thelearned Public Prosecutor is that by virtue of the delegation authorised under section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh District Collector’s Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961 the case has been made over to the District Revenue Officer who is of equivalent status as the Collector for further enquiry. But, even under section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh District Collector’s Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961 relied on by the Public Prosecutor the making over of the case does not appear to be in conformity with the above said provision. Section 3 reads as follows: "3. But, even under section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh District Collector’s Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961 relied on by the Public Prosecutor the making over of the case does not appear to be in conformity with the above said provision. Section 3 reads as follows: "3. The State Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette authorise any Joint Collector...not below the rank of Deputy Collector to exercise all or any of the powers vested by or under any law in the District Collector and may, in like manner, withdraw such authorisation: Provided that no authorisation under this section shall prevent the District Collector from exercising in such cases as he deems ‘fit, all or any of the powers exercisable by the Joint Collectors or other Officer by virtue of the authorisation aforesaid: Provided further that where in respect of any case, the District Collector exercises his powers, the Joint Collector or other Officer authorised under this section shall not exercise his powers in respect of the same case." The second proviso clearly directs that where in respect of any case the District Collector exercises his powers, the joint Collector or other Officer shall not exercise his powers in respect of the same case. Under this provision when there is a delegation of power it is open either to the District Collector to take cognizance of the case and dispose it of himself or the District Revenue Officer to whom the powers with regard to the enquiry under the Essential Commodities Act has been delegated to take cognizance of the case and deal with it himself. But the relevant consideration here is whether in a case taken cognizance of by the District Collector, the District Revenue Officer can make further enquiry and pass an order confiscating the commodities seized. To us, such a procedure appears to be contrary, to the provisions of the proviso to section 3. Under section 6-B (a) of the Essential Commodities Act a notice in writing should be given informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity. This provision therefore contemplates the officer giving the notice exercising his mind in coming to a conclusion whether there is a case for initiating proceedings or not and if he considers that there is such a case, then he should issue a notice giving the reasons for the proposed confiscation. This provision therefore contemplates the officer giving the notice exercising his mind in coming to a conclusion whether there is a case for initiating proceedings or not and if he considers that there is such a case, then he should issue a notice giving the reasons for the proposed confiscation. It is further necessary that the same person who had exercised his mind with regard to the issuing of the notice should continue the proceedings with regard to the enquiry and passing of the order. The object behind the second proviso to section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh District Collector’s Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961 is obviously that in a given case there should not be enquiry in part by one and in part by another. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that what was issued was formal notice and the enquiry was actually done by the District Revenue Officer and therefore, no prejudice had been caused. This is not a proper approach to the question. What is contemplated under the proviso itself is that not only there should not be a conflict in the exercise of powers in a single case but when one of the persons — either the Collector or the person to whom the powers are delegated, initiates the proceedings he must continue it and pass final orders in the matter. It appears to us that it is in the interests of justice also that the person who initiated the proceedings by issuing a notice giving reasons for confiscation after exercising his mind should also further enquire into the matter and dispose it of. In this case admittedly it was the Collector who issued the notice but it was the District Revenue Officer who continued further enquiry and passed the final orders. This is not in accordance with law. We therefore, think it desirable that the order of confiscation should be set aside and the matter should be remanded to the District Collector to dispose it of on further enquiry as contemplated under section 6 (B) of the Act. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this Court can only pass an order setting aside the confiscation and cannot remand the case for further enquiry. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this Court can only pass an order setting aside the confiscation and cannot remand the case for further enquiry. According to him, this Court setting in revision has only the powers of an appellate Court and under section 6 (C) of the Act the appellate Court could only confirm, modify or annul the order appealed against and cannot remand the case. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contends that under section 6 (C) (i) of the above Act the appellate Court can pass such order “as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against”, that the terms “such order as it may think fit,” include the powers of remand and the further terms used “confirming modifying or annulling the order appealed against” are only descriptive of some of the powers and not exhaustive in themselves. Apart from the above contention, of the Counsel for the petitioner with regard to the powers of this Court to remand the case, in the Act itself there is no provision for filing a revision against the orders of the Appellate Officer. The revision is sought to be filed under sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under section 439, the High Court admittedly, has powers to remand. Having had recourse to section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, and having filed a revision, it is not open to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to contend that the powers of the revision vested in the High Court including the power of remand cannot be exercised. We, therefore, set aside the order of the District Revenue Officer and remand the case to the District Collector, West Godavari to dispose of the case according to law, after further enquiry. A.B.K. ------ Order set aside; case remanded to District Collector.