JUDGMENT S.K. Mishra, J. The Petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petition praying therein to quash the Order dated 05.09.2014 (Annexure-1) passed by the Collector, Nayagarh in E.C. Case No.2 of 2014 under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, shortly herein after referred to as 'the Act', with a further prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to return the confiscated articles i.e. paddy crops amounting to Q. 142.58 KG (204 jari bags). 2. The case of the Petitioners is that, on 17.02.2014 at night, one Gobinda Chandra Champati, who was the owner of the truck bearing No.OD-02J-2720, sent his vehicle with loaded brinjals to Berhampur. When the said truck was returning on the next date i.e. 18.02.2014 morning, after unloading the brinjals, the Petitioner No.1, who was a farmer, along with other co-villagers/farmers, the present Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, approached the driver of the said vehicle to carry their paddy bags to the Rice Mill of M/s Subhalaxmi Agencies Pvt. Ltd., at Sunakhala for milling of their paddy. On being so approached, the driver of the vehicle agreed to bring the paddy to the said Rice Mill. But, on the way, at Village Khatia, the Officer In-Charge (OIC), Sarankul Police Station, without any authority detained the said truck and paddy and kept it inside the premises of Sarankul Police Station. When the OIC detained the truck, the Petitioners informed him that they were carrying their paddy bags to the mill of the said agency at Sunakhala for milling their paddy. The OIC, Sarankul, did not give any heed to the same and asked the driver Sri Gobinda Chandra Champati to move the vehicle to Sarankul Police Station for further investigation of the case. Thereafter, on the next day i.e. 19.02.2014, the Marketing Inspector, Odagaon Block seized the said paddy bags on apprehension of purchase of the same from the farmers at below minimum price, illegally and without any enquiry sent same for confiscation. The case of the Petitioners is that the Opposite Party No.2 presumed that the driver of the said vehicle has illegally transported the paddy from Village Damasahi under Ranapur Block to Chikiti under Ganjam District, as the driver could not produce any document towards transportation of paddy through his vehicle. The case of the Petitioners is that the Opposite Party No.2 presumed that the driver of the said vehicle has illegally transported the paddy from Village Damasahi under Ranapur Block to Chikiti under Ganjam District, as the driver could not produce any document towards transportation of paddy through his vehicle. Hence, E.C. proceeding was initiated which was registered as E.C. No.2 of 2014 against the Petitioner No.1 and the driver for allegedly violating Clause (4) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale and Movement Order, 1982. Accordingly, on being noticed E.C. No.2 of 2014, they filed Show-Cause Reply. But without considering the same in its proper prospective, the impugned order was passed in E.C. No.2 of 2014. 3. Heard Ms. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners so also Mr. Panigrahi, learned ASC for the State-Opposite Parties. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits, before passing the impugned Order dated 05.09.2014 by the Opposite Party No.1, in terms of the Section 6A of the Act, the Petitioners were not given any notice in writing and the procedure to be followed under Section 6B of the Act was never followed before passing the impugned order, thereby the Petitioners were debarred from the opportunity to have their say. The principles of natural justice was not followed before passing the impugned order. She further submits, the said proceeding was initiated on mere apprehension of purchase of paddy from the farmers at below minimum supported price so also due to non-submission of valid documents and for alleged contravention of Clause-4 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale and Movement Order, 1982, though they being cultivators, were bringing paddy in terms of Clause-8 of the said Order, 1982. She further submits, the Opposite Party No.1 (Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Nayagarh), while passing the impugned Order dated 05.09.2014, failed to appreciate the fact that the Petitioners are farmers/cultivators, who are carrying paddy to M/s Subhalaxmi Agencies Pvt. Ltd. for milling of the said paddy and the initiation of proceeding under Section 6A of the Act is not maintainable. 5. She further submits, the Opposite Party No.1 (Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Nayagarh), while passing the impugned Order dated 05.09.2014, failed to appreciate the fact that the Petitioners are farmers/cultivators, who are carrying paddy to M/s Subhalaxmi Agencies Pvt. Ltd. for milling of the said paddy and the initiation of proceeding under Section 6A of the Act is not maintainable. 5. Learned ASC for the State Opposite Parties draws attention of this Court to the Counter Affidavit filed by the State and the report of the Marketing Inspector, Odagaon Block dated 19.02.2014, as at Annexure-1 Series, and submits, the impugned Order has been passed based on the said report and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners in terms of Section 6B of the Act. Learned ASC further submits, in the said proceeding under Section 6A of the Act, the driver so also the owner of the vehicle were parties, whereas the present Writ Petition has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle along with other three persons claiming themselves to be the alleged farmers/ co-villagers, who were not party to E.C. Case No.2 of 2014. He further submits, there is a provision of Appeal under Section 6C of the Act and Petitioner No.1, along with the driver of the vehicle, ought to have preferred an Appeal challenging the Order passed by the Opposite Party No.1 in a proceeding under Section 6A of the Act. 6. It is appropriate to mention here that since an allegation was made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that despite passing of interim Order in their favour the confiscated paddies were sold, on being directed by coordinate Bench, the Opposite Party No.2 has filed an Affidavit on 11.07.2023 indicating therein that the interim Order passed by this Court was never communicated to the I.O.- Cum-M.I., Odagaon Block on or before 26.11.2014 nor the same was communicated by the Petitioners to the I.O. Hence, in due obedience to the Order dated 05.09.2014 of the Collector, Nayagarh, as the paddies are perishable in nature and deteriorated due to natural decay, the same were disposed of on 26.11.2014 and the sale proceed of the paddy was deposited in proper Head of Account vide Treasury Challan dated 26.11.2014. 7. 7. Though the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has received the copy of such Affidavit, a query being made by the Court, she failed to apprise this Court as to communication of the interim Order dated 18.11.2014 passed by this Court to the concerned Authority by her clients and submits, she has no instruction from the Petitioners regarding such Affidavit. 8. However, with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition, as raised by the learned ASC for the State-Opposite Parties, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits, since the very initiation of proceeding under Section 6A of the Act was bad and not maintainable, the Petitioners were under bonafide impression and good faith that, despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal, the Writ Petition is maintainable, though there is a provision of appeal under Section 6C of the Act. However, in view of the technical issues raised by the learned ASC with regarding to maintainability of the Writ Petition so also locus standi of other Petitioners i.e. the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, learned Counsel for the Petitioners prays for withdrawal of the Writ Petition with liberty to prefer an appeal before the appropriate Authority in terms of Section 6C of the Act, 1955. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with liberty as prayed for. 10. Needless to mention here that if an Appeal is preferred in terms of Section 6C of the Act within fifteen days from the date of issuance of certified copy of this judgment, along with an application for condonation of delay, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority in terms of provisions enshrined under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 11. Since this is a matter of the year, 2014, the Appellate Authority shall do well to deal with and dispose of the Appeal within a period of three months from the date of preferring the Appeal. 12. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be issued on proper application as per rule.