ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J: Petitioner, a registered owner of the motor vehicle being a truck bearing certificate of registration No.KA-32-B-2604 when hired by Messrs. Abdul Gani Trading Company of Jewargi to transport food grains to Hyderabad along with necessary permission from the trader and relevant documents, the PSI of Shahabad Police Station on 30.11.2011 alleging violation of Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') seized the foodgrains and the truck and registered an FIR. Petitioner's request for release of the motor vehicle led to the Deputy Commissioner issuing an endorsement dated 18.02.2012 Annexure-F calling upon the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 11,50,000/- being the market value of the truck, for its release. 2. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, petitioner has preferred this petition. 3. The Deputy Commissioner exercising power under Section 6-A of the Act initiated proceedings over the seizure of 400 bags of 50 Kgs. each containing wheat transported by the petitioner. Seizure of the motor vehicle carrying wheat for alleged violation of Sections 3 and 7 of the Act cannot but be said to be within the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act. 4. The Apex Court in Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District Vs. Rudolph Fernades, AIR 2000 SC 1132 observed that the object of the Act is to deter a person from illegally dealing in essential commodities and consequently, liable to be imposed with deterrent punishment, as also to prevent the owner of any vehicle from aiding or assisting such an illegal activity. 5. Section 6-A of the Act provides for seizure and confiscation of the essential commodity for contravention of any order issued under Section 3. The procedure for seizure and confiscation of the essential commodity and the vehicle used for transportation and the issuance of show-cause notice to the transporter is provided for under Section 6-B of the Act. Section 6-C of the Act provides for filing an appeal against confiscation while Section 6-D of the Act provides that an order of confiscation under the Act does not prevent the infliction of any punishment on the person affected thereby, in other words, liable for prosecution under Section 7 of the Act. 6. Section 6-C of the Act provides for filing an appeal against confiscation while Section 6-D of the Act provides that an order of confiscation under the Act does not prevent the infliction of any punishment on the person affected thereby, in other words, liable for prosecution under Section 7 of the Act. 6. The proviso to Section 6-A of the Act limits the competent authority to recover fine up to the market price, on the date of confiscation, of the vehicle and to release the vehicle sought to be confiscated. Thus maximum fine that can be levied in lieu of confiscation cannot exceed the market value of the vehicle as on the date of the seizure. If the value of the essential commodity is less than the market price of the vehicle used for its transportation, it cannot be said that instead of confiscation it should be released at a price which is less than its market value. However, under the second proviso to Section 6-A(1) of the Act, the measure of fine would be up to the market price of the vehicle on the relevant date and it is within the discretion of the competent authority to fix such reasonable amount considering the facts and circumstances of each case. 7. Section 7(1)(b) and (c) empowers the Court to forfeit to the Government, the vehicle used for transporting the essential commodity. 8. Keeping in mind the aforesaid provisions of law and the observations of the Apex Court, an examination of the facts as set out in the petition discloses that the petitioner is the owner of the truck confiscated which was put to use for transporting the food grains. Petitioner being the owner is entitled to put to use the truck only on its release. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is unable to garner a bank guarantee for Rs. 1,50,000/- so as to secure the conditional release of the truck, however, petitioner is willing to furnish immovable property to secure the conditional release of the truck, subject to producing the vehicle as and when called for by the Deputy Commissioner, as well as in the criminal proceeding. 9. According to the learned Government Advocate on the lodging of the FIR, investigation is on going and is unable to state the exact stage of the proceeding. 9. According to the learned Government Advocate on the lodging of the FIR, investigation is on going and is unable to state the exact stage of the proceeding. So also, learned Government Advocate is unable to state as to whether the Deputy Commissioner has since distributed seized goods through public distribution system or has after initiating action under Section 6-A of the Act issued show-cause notice, to extend reasonable opportunities of hearing to the parties concerned, including the petitioner. 10. In the circumstances, ends of justice would be met by permitting the petitioner to furnish security for Rs. 11,50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner, otherwise than by way of bank guarantee, for the release of the seized truck, with a condition to produce the truck as and when called for by the Deputy Commissioner, as well as, in the criminal proceeding including such other reasonable conditions as the Deputy Commissioner may impose. 11. In the result, this petition is allowed in part. Petitioner is permitted to furnish security for Rs. 11,50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner, other than by way of bank guarantee, for release of seized truck. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to conclude the proceeding, in any event, by 31.10.2013, failing which, the Deputy Commissioner shall be liable to monetary loss that may be occasioned to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner shall in the event of the petitioner being unable to furnish security, ensure that the truck in question is maintained in a road worthy condition until its final release and furnish monthly statement of the maintenance of the truck to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Shahabad, before whom Crime No.181/2011 is pending consideration. 12. The Additional Registrar General is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Shahabad, forthwith for compliance.