JUDGMENT : N.V. ANJARIA, J. 1. The challenge in this petition is directed against order dated 22nd December, 2014 below Exhibit 11 in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2014, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Navsari. The Criminal Appeal was filed against order dated 15/17th February, 2014 passed by the Collector, Navsari in exercise of powers under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 directing seizure of the essential commodity, further providing that the vehicle in question which was also seized could be got released on furnishing of bank guarantee of Rs.12,00,000/- being the value of the vehicle. 2. Application (Exh.11) was filed by the petitioner-the owner of the vehicle praying for release of the vehicle during the pendency and till outcome of the Appeal on appropriate conditions. As the said application came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, the aggrieved petitioner is before this Court. 3. The relevant facts, shorn off the unnecessary details may be noted. It appears that from a place behind a house of one Dahyabhai, quantity of government wheat was recovered upon a raid conducted on 26th March, 2013. The said essential commodity was found in the vehicle being Tata Tempo bearing No. GJ-21-V-5415 owned by the petitioner. It was alleged against the petitioner and another person one Maheshbhai Dahyabhai Patel that they acted in collusion to misappropriate the said essential commodity being the quantity of wheat comprised in 192 bags of 50 kg each. Against the petitioner it was the allegation that he mentioned about a bill issued from one Yogi Rice Mill which however was not produced during the inquiry and that he also did not produce the evidence regarding ownership of the vehicle. 3.1 The details of the article and commodity seized amounted to Rs.13,58,275/- in total. The said amount comprised of Rs.01,53,600/- being the value of the 9,600 kg wheat, Rs.12,00,000/- being the amount taken as value of the vehicle-Tata Tempo in question, measuring instrument and gunny bags of the total value of Rs.04,675/-. 3.2 On the basis of the aforesaid facts and details, the competent authority-the Collector, holding that Para 6(4) the Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 was breached. In exercise of powers under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Collector, Navsari order for seizure of 100% of the quantity of the essential commodity-wheat of the value of Rs.1,53,600/-. 3.2 On the basis of the aforesaid facts and details, the competent authority-the Collector, holding that Para 6(4) the Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 was breached. In exercise of powers under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Collector, Navsari order for seizure of 100% of the quantity of the essential commodity-wheat of the value of Rs.1,53,600/-. The Collector, as already noted, provided in respect of the vehicle seized, that the same could be released upon furnishing of bank guarantee of its value put at Rs.12,00,000/-. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.M. Jadeja, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Bharat Vyas for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. Kartik Pandya for respondent No.3. On behalf of respondent No.2, one Remya Mohan (IAS), Collector, Navsari has filed affidavit-in-reply stating inter-alia that FIR was also lodged before the Police Station, Vansda and the Criminal Appeal is also pending; the impugned order and the exercise of powers by the Collector under the Essential Commodities Act resulting into the order dated 15/17th February, 2014 were defended. 4.1 The submission of learned advocate for the petitioner would be readily countenanced that the Collector could not have imposed the condition of furnishing bank guarantee to the tune and equivalent to the value of the vehicle, that is Rs.12,00,000/-. This becomes clear when the provision of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act is considered. 4.2 Section 6A reads as under:- “6A. This becomes clear when the provision of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act is considered. 4.2 Section 6A reads as under:- “6A. Confiscation of essential commodity.-(1) Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order may order confiscation of:- (a) the essential commodity so seized; (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity; Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no food-grains or edible oilseeds in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized food-grains or edible oilseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section: Provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance. (2) Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section 91), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may:- (i) order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for essential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; (ii) where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction; Provided that in case of food-grains, the Collector may, for its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, order the same to be sold through fair price shops at the price fixed by the Central Government or by the State Government, as the case may be, for the retail sale of such food-grains to the public. (3) Where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall:- (a) where no order or confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector; (b) where an order passed on appeal under sub-section (1) of section 6C so requires; (c) where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section, the person concerned is acquitted, be paid to the owner of the person from whom it is seized.” 4.3 As far as the issue and the grievance of the petitioner made with reference to the impugned orders, second Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6A comes into play. While conferring powers for confiscation of essential commodity on the Collector of the District, it is contemplated in the second Proviso that in case of any vehicle, vessel or other conveyance, etc. used for the carriage of the goods is confiscated while effecting seizure of the essential commodity, the owner of such vehicle or conveyance shall be given an option to pay fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity carried in such vehicle or conveyance. This option is in lieu of confiscation, in other words the condition for release of the vehicle or conveyance is prescribed in the second Proviso to Section 6(A)(1). This option is in lieu of confiscation, in other words the condition for release of the vehicle or conveyance is prescribed in the second Proviso to Section 6(A)(1). The condition is of paying the fine which is not to exceed the market price of the essential commodity seized. 5. The market price of the commodity-the wheat seized in the present case was admittedly Rs.1,53,600/-. The fine could not have been imposed towards condition of release of vehicle exceeding the said value, as clearly provided in the aforesaid provision in the Proviso. Requiring the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs.12,00,000/- equivalent to the claimed value of the vehicle-Tempo was impermissible in law and such condition imposed by the Collector is not liable to be sustained in law and therefore the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge below Exhibit 11 is also rendered to be liable to be set aside. 5.1 In Rajput Carrier vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 (1) GLH 806 , this Court with reference to Section 6A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 held thus:- “… there is no doubt that when any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance is used for carrying an essential commodity liable to confiscation, such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance is also liable to confiscation. The Legislature, however, enjoins on the authority to give option to the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance, to pay in lieu of its confiscation a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance. Therefore, the contention that before directing confiscation of the tanker in question, an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation of the tanker ought to have been given to the petitioner No.1-owner of the tanker appears to be well founded. The authority is required to give such option to petitioner No.1-owner of the tanker to pay fine in lieu of its confiscation, not exceeding the market price at the date of the seizure of the tanker in question. Since no such option was given by the authorities before order of confiscation of the tanker, the action is contrary to law and must be held to be illegal and unlawful. Since no such option was given by the authorities before order of confiscation of the tanker, the action is contrary to law and must be held to be illegal and unlawful. A similar view is taken by the High Court of Karnataka in Krishna Bhima vs. State, 1979 Cr.L.J. 977.” (Para 5) 6. Thus Section 6A of the Act, and in particular the second Proviso thereto is clear in their import and manifesting the legislative intention. The power of seizure and confiscation of the essential commodity and the vehicle or conveyance in which such commodity may be carried, are conferred. However in terms of the second Proviso, the vehicle, vessel or conveyance which may have been seized can be released on conditions mentioned therein. The condition is of payment of fine which in turn not to be higher and not to exceed the value of the essential commodity carried in such vehicle or conveyance, which may have been seized. The authority cannot impose fine exceeding the value of the seized commodity and cannot prescribe higher or harsher condition for release of the vehicle. Giving of option to pay the fine as above is also a mandatory requirement. The owner of the vehicle has to be given such option by the authority. In the present case, even no such option was given. The vehicle is kept seized and lying in the custody of the authority, which is against the statutory provision. The condition of requiring the petitioner-owner to give bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of value of the vehicle is ex facie illegal. 7. In the result this petition is allowed with the following directions:- (i) The impugned order dated 22nd December, 2014 of learned Sessions Judge, Navsari below Exhibit 11 in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2014 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to release the vehicle being Tata Tempo No.GJ-21-V-5415, is hereby set aside. 7. In the result this petition is allowed with the following directions:- (i) The impugned order dated 22nd December, 2014 of learned Sessions Judge, Navsari below Exhibit 11 in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2014 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to release the vehicle being Tata Tempo No.GJ-21-V-5415, is hereby set aside. Also stands quashed and set aside the order dated 15/17th February, 2014 of the Collector, Navsari in so far as it provides for condition of giving bank guarantee of Rs.12,00,000/- for release of the petitioner’s vehicle in question; (ii) On the petitioner depositing Rs.1,00,000/- approximating to 60% of the value of Rs.1,53,600/- of the commodity seized, with the office of Collector, Navsari an upon production of such receipt of deposit, the vehicle being Tata Tempo No.GJ-21-V-5415 shall be immediately released from the custody of the authorities and the authority in whose custody the vehicle is lying, shall hand over the same to the petitioner; (iii) The aforesaid amount to be deposited by the petitioner as condition for release of the vehicle shall be the amount of fine paid for the purpose and the same shall be subject to the final outcome of the main Criminal Appeal, that is to say on the Appeal of the petitioner being allowed, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be refundable to him and vise-a-versa. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Direct service is permitted. Application allowed.