Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 27.04.2006 passed by Respondent no.4, Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas (Bokaro) in Confiscation case no.07 of 2002, whereunder the Marketing Officer, Chas was directed to auction-sale the confiscated rice in pursuance to the order passed by Respondent No.2, Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro dated 31.03.2006 in Confiscation case no.07 of 2002. 3. By an amendment application, being I.A. No.2387 of 2012, the order dated 31st March, 2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro in the said Confiscation Case, has also been impugned by adding the said prayer in the instant writ application, pursuant to the order dated 06.08.2012 passed in the said interlocutory application. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioners, for the alleged violation of the provision of E.C. Act, a confiscation proceeding was initiated against the petitioners, for the confiscation of rice, weighing 41.16 quintals under Section 6A of the E.C. Act, 1955 and a criminal case, being Chas P.S. Case No.117 of 2012 was also lodged under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and Section 409 of the IPC against the petitioners in relation to the same incidents. 5. Earlier, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the Confiscation Case No.07 of 2002 itself, wherein, this Court, in W.P.(C) No. 6207 of 2002 vide order dated 25.03.2003, remitted the matter with liberty to the petitioners to agitate the same before the competent authority and also with a direction that if the petitioners furnish security of like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, the competent authority will release the articles (rice) in favour of the owners/petitioners (vide Annexure 1). The petitioners, thereafter, approached this Court being aggrieved by the refusal, by the respondents, to release the said seized articles (rice) in spite of security, having been furnished on their behalf, which was impugned as order dated 27.04.2006 passed by S.D.O., Chas (Bokaro). 6. During the pendency of the writ application, by way of rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the respondents, the petitioners have brought on record certain developments, which has occurred after the filing of the writ petition. 7. 6. During the pendency of the writ application, by way of rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the respondents, the petitioners have brought on record certain developments, which has occurred after the filing of the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the Annexure 5, brought on record by way of said rejoinder, stated that a criminal case, being Chas P.S. Case No.117 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No.838 of 2002, registered under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and Section 409 of the IPC against the petitioners, has been quashed by this Court in Cr. Misc. Petition No.1124 of 2007 vide order dated 23rd August, 2010. This Court, in the light of the facts and circumstances and the discussions made in the said case, proceeded to quash the impugned order dated 18.07.2007 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro and the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the court below in the said Chas P.S. Case No.117 of 2002. 8. This Court, in the light of the facts and circumstances and the discussions made in the said case, proceeded to quash the impugned order dated 18.07.2007 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro and the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the court below in the said Chas P.S. Case No.117 of 2002. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the quashing of entire criminal prosecution against the petitioners in relation to the same allegation of violation of the provisions of E.C. Act and the control orders, the orders passed in the confiscation proceeding also has to go and the petitioners are entitled to the return of the essential commodities seized for the price therein, as per the provisions of Section 6C(2) of the E.C. Act., which is quoted herein below: “Where an order under Section 6A is modified or annulled by [such judicial authority], or where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under Section 6A, the person concerned is acquitted, and in either case it is not possible for any reason to [return the essential commodity seized], [such persons shall, except as provided by sub-section (3) of section 6A, be paid] the price therefor [as if the essential commodity,] had been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the day of the seizure of [the essential commodity] [and such price shall be determined- (i) in the case of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3B) of section 3; (ii) in the case of sugar, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3C) of section 3; and (iii) in the case of any other essential commodity, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3.]}” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in the similar circumstances, this Court, in the case of Bimal Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Bihar and ors. reported in 2003(2) J C R 689 (Jhr) had quashed the order of confiscating authority and directed the competent authority to act in terms of Section 6C. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in the similar circumstances, this Court, in the case of Bimal Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Bihar and ors. reported in 2003(2) J C R 689 (Jhr) had quashed the order of confiscating authority and directed the competent authority to act in terms of Section 6C. On perusal of aforesaid judgment in the said case, it appears that simultaneous proceeding for confiscation under Section 6C of the E.C. Act and criminal prosecution by the institution of the FIR for the same incidents, were initiated against the said petitioner. The criminal prosecution was quashed by a judgment of this Court passed by learned Single Judge against the said petitioner, which was also brought on record in the said writ petition by the petitioner, invoking the provisions of Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act. In those circumstances, it was held as under: “Section 6(c)(ii) provides, inter alia, that where an order of confiscation is either modified or annulled by the judicial authority or when the prosecution instituted ends in acquittal and in either case, if it is not possible to return the commodities seized, then such person as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 6-A shall be paid the price therefor as if the essential commodities had been sold to the Government together with the reasonable interest calculated from the day of seizure. Consequently, the order dated 26.10.1999 is quashed and the Deputy Commissioner is directed to act in terms of Section 6(c)(ii) and if any bond etc. had been executed, then the same should be discharged.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that the criminal prosecution, lodged against the petitioners, has been quashed by the judgment of this Court, as contained in Annexure 5 to the rejoinder. The provisions of law quoted hereinabove, as also the judgment relied upon by the petitioners, support the contention of the petitioners that in such circumstances, the order passed in confiscation proceeding itself is now fit to be quashed. 11. In the facts and circumstances discussed herein above, the order dated 31st March 2006 in Confiscation Case No.07 of 2002 is quashed and the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro is directed to act in terms of Section 6C and if any bond has been executed on behalf of the petitioners, the same should be discharged. 12. 11. In the facts and circumstances discussed herein above, the order dated 31st March 2006 in Confiscation Case No.07 of 2002 is quashed and the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro is directed to act in terms of Section 6C and if any bond has been executed on behalf of the petitioners, the same should be discharged. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.