ORDER I.A. No. 3199 of 2007 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this interlocutory application, petitioner seeks to incorporate the amendment made in the para-3 of the instant interlocutory application in the main writ petition for challenging the ex-parte order of confiscation vide memo no. 164 dated 23.08.2007, which is annexed as annexure-9 to the Interlocutory Application, as according to the petitioner, final order of confiscation of seized goods were passed only after eight days of issuance of the notice on 14.08.2007 against which the petitioner had moved this court for the same relief. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner came to know about the passing of the said confiscation order by way of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents subsequently therefore he seeks to incorporate the amendment in the main writ application to assail the confiscation order passed by confiscating authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara for the reason stated in the Interlocutory Application. 4. The amendment sought is allowed for the reason stated in the Interlocutory Application. 5. Let the Interlocutory Application be treated as part of the main writ petition. 6. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. W.P.C. 5025 of 2007 7. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing of notice issued by the respondent no. 2 Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara vide Memo No. 155 dated 14.08.2007 under Section 6 B of the Essential Commodities Act whereby the petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why the seized blue kerosene oil and tanker be not confiscated. 8. By way of the amendment petition, the petitioner has also sought for the quashing of order of confiscation vide Memo no 164 dated 23.08.2007(Annexure-9) which, according to the petitioner, was passed within eight days of the issuance of notice, without service of notice upon the petitioner, on the first date fixed itself. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the impugned notice and the confiscation order submits that as per the notice, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara informed the Deputy Commission, Jamtara vide Memo No. 1057 dated 06.08.2007 regarding the seizure of the vehicle being Registration No. BR 36-4599 alongwith 12,000 litres of blue kerosene oil and recommended confiscation proceeding against the petitioner and others. It is submitted that pursuant to the said information contained in the letter dated 06.08.2007, the respondent no. It is submitted that pursuant to the said information contained in the letter dated 06.08.2007, the respondent no. 2 issued a notice contained in Memo No. 155 dated 14.08.2007 (Annexure-7) asking the petitioner and others to file show cause as to why the seized material be not confiscated under the provision of 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the owner of the truck and also the registered wholesale kerosene oil dealer of the District of Godda for which Indian Oil Corporation has entered into an agreement with the petitioner. It is submitted that the notice dated 14.08.2007 was received by the petitioner on 29.08.2007. The petitioner being aggrieved by the notice moved this Court. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, it came to his knowledge that on first date itself i.e. on 22.08.2007, as per the notice dated 14.08.2007, the respondent no. 2 proceeded to pass the final order of confiscation of the seized kerosene oil without assigning any reason in the absence of the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order of confiscation is bad in law as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner as the final order of confiscation has passed within eight days of the issuance of notice and notice itself was not served upon the petitioner by that date. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the impugned order has been passed in a proper and legal manner after issuance of notice, but the petitioner failed to give reply to the respondent to the same and the respondent no. 2 was left with no option but to pass a final order of confiscation of huge amount of kerosene oil seized from a Tanker, which is indicated in the notice itself. 11. The contention of the petitioner specifically made in paragraph-14 that the notice was received by him on 29.08.2007, has not been categorically denied and no proof of services of such notices upon the petitioner before the date of passing the confiscation order either has been annexed with the counter affidavit to show that the petitioner has knowledge of the proceeding by virtue of the notice dated 14.08.2007 whereafter the impugned order was passed on 22.08.2007 by the respondent no. 2. 12. 2. 12. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant material including the impugned notice and order of confiscation dated 23.08.2007, it appears that the notice asking the petitioner to file show cause against the confiscation of seized kerosene oil was issued on 14.08.2007 and on the first date itself on 22.08.2007 final order of confiscation has been passed by the respondent no. 2 confiscating the seized kerosene oil and directing that the vehicle is to be kept in police station. From the contention of the parties, it also appears that the petitioner was not served notice prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 23.08.2007 and the contention of the petitioner that he received the notice itself on 29.08.2007 has not been refuted by the respondent through any categorical statement made in the counter affidavit or any proof of services of notices annexed thereto. 13. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that the impugned order has been passed in haste within eight days of the issuance of notice without giving appropriate opportunity to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner thereby denying him the principles of natural justice. 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order is fit to be set aside and is accordingly, quashed. 15. However, it is left open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law after proper opportunity of show cause and hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. 16. This writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.