ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Heard on admission and I.A.No.1, application for grant of stay. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.08.2022 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, declined to entertain the revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 47(C) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (for short, “the Act of 1915”) and thereby quashed the order of the appellate authority affirming the order of the Collector confiscating the vehicle owned by the petitioner herein. 3. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate with Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that the learned Additional Sessions Judge is absolutely unjustified in interfering with the concurrent finding recorded by both the authorities confiscating the vehicle in favour of the State by recording finding which is totally perverse to the record, as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners/State and considered their submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Section 47-A of the Act of 1915 was inserted in the Act of 1915 by M.P. Act No.22 of 2000 w.e.f. 4.8.2000. Sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of Act of 1915 provides for confiscation. It can be exercised if Collector is satisfied that an offence covered by clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 34 has been committed and where the quantity of liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of such offence exceeds fifty bulk liters he may, on the ground to be recorded in writing, order the confiscation of the intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. so seized. 6. Sub-section (3) of Section 47A of the Act of 1915 provides as under: “(3) No order under sub-section (2) shall be made unless the Collector has - (a) sent an intimation in a form prescribed by the Excise Commissioner about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of seized intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. to the court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made; (b) issued a notice in writing to the person from whom such intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. to the court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made; (b) issued a notice in writing to the person from whom such intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. have been seized and to any person staking claim to it and to any other person who may appear before the Collector to have an interest in it; (c) afforded an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) above of making are presentation against proposed confiscation; (d) given to the officer effecting the seizure under sub-section (1) and to the person or persons who have been noticed under clause (b) a hearing.” 7. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that as per clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 47A of the Act of 1915, the Collector has to send an intimation in the form prescribed by the Excise Commissioner about the initiation of proceedings for confiscation of seized intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. to the court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. The Collector is further obliged to issue a notice in writing to the person from whom such intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. have been seized and to any person staking claim to it and to any other person who may appear before the Collector to have an interest in it. 8. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Rajendra Kumar Gupta v. State of M.P. and another, 2002 (4) M.P.L.J. 149 has held that issuance of notice to the driver or the person from whom vehicle was seized is mandatory and order of confiscation passed without hearing the person from whose possession the illicit liquor or contraband is seized is illegal. 9. Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 47A of the Act of 1915 provides an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) above of making a representation against proposed confiscation. 10. 9. Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 47A of the Act of 1915 provides an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) above of making a representation against proposed confiscation. 10. In the matter of Khem Chand v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1958 SC 300 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India which provides that no person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against action proposed to be taken in regard to him. It has been held that an opportunity to make a representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him, which he can only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges proved against the government servant tentatively proposes to inflict one of the three punishments and observed as under: “19. To summarise: the reasonable opportunity envisaged by the provision under consideration includes: (a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence; and finally (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflected on him, which he can only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges proved against the government servant tentatively proposes to inflict one of the three punishments and communicates the same to the government servant. In short the substance of the protection provided by rules, like R. 55 referred to above, was bodily lifted out of the rules and together with an additional opportunity embodied in S. 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 so as to give a statutory protection to the government servants and has now been incorporated in Art.311(2) so as to convert the protection into a constitutional safeguard.” 11. Similarly, an opportunity to the person referred in clause (c) of making a representation against proposed confiscation though it is not specifically mentioned in clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 47A of the Act of 1915, that the material collected in support of confiscation should also be supplied. In the considered opinion of this Court, the supply of the material on the basis of which opinion has been formed for confiscation of vehicle in question is included in the opportunity as contemplated under Section 47A(3)(c) of the Act of 1915. To enable the person to defend himself properly, it is necessary that the material on the basis of which opinion has been formed should also be supplied. 12. Likewise, the Collector while confiscating the seized intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance is also obliged to give a hearing to the person mentioned in clause (b) of su-section (3) of Section 47A of the Act of 1915. 13. The word 'hearing' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 721 as under: “The introduction and admissibility of evidence is usually mere lax in a hearing than in a civil or criminal trial (see e.g. 42 U.S.C.A. $ 405(b) which provides for admissibility of evidence at social security hearings that would otherwise be in admissible at regular trial). Hearings are extensively employed by both legislative and administrative agencies and can be adjudicative or merely investigatory. Adjudicative hearings can be appealed in a court of law. Congressional committees often hold hearings prior to enactment of legislation; these hearings are then important sources of legislative history.” 14. The Advanced Law Lexicon-2005th edition defines “hearing” as the trial of a suit is called a “hearing” and technically considered, this includes not only introduction of the evidence and arguments of the counsels, but the pronouncing of the decree by the presiding officer. 15. The Patna High Court in the matter of Sheikh Abdul Rahman v. Shiblal Sahu and others, AIR 1922 Patna 252 defined the “hearing” as a judicial session held for the purpose of deciding issues of fact or that of law; in administrative law, presentment of argument by the affected individual to the decision making authority. 16. 15. The Patna High Court in the matter of Sheikh Abdul Rahman v. Shiblal Sahu and others, AIR 1922 Patna 252 defined the “hearing” as a judicial session held for the purpose of deciding issues of fact or that of law; in administrative law, presentment of argument by the affected individual to the decision making authority. 16. In the matter of Kanaran Nambiar v. Ramunni Nambiar, AIR 1961 Kerala 290 the Kerala High Court has held that “hearing” as used in the Code of Civil Procedure does not mean the 'hearing of arguments' only. It refers to all the stages of the trial of a suit namely, the settling of issues, taking of evidence and hearing of arguments or other proceedings tendency to a final adjudication of the suit. 17. Thus, in the light of legal provisions noticed hereinabove and conditions precedent for passing the order of confiscation and principles of law noticed, it is quite vivid that before confiscating the seized intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. as mentioned in Section 47A (3) (a) of the Act of 1915, the Collector is obliged to send an intimation in the prescribed form about the initiation of proceedings for confiscation of seized articles to the court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. The Collector is further obliged to issue a notice in writing to the person from whom such intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. have been seized and to any person staking claim to and to any other person who may appear before the Collector to have an interest in it and thereafter he has to afford an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) of making a representation against proposed confiscation and lastly, he is obliged to give a hearing to the officer effecting the seizure under sub-section (1) and to the person or persons who have been noticed under clause (b) a hearing. 18. The aforesaid conditions precedent are sine-qua-non for passing a valid order of confiscation of the vehicle seized in excise offence. 18. The aforesaid conditions precedent are sine-qua-non for passing a valid order of confiscation of the vehicle seized in excise offence. If one of the conditions precedent is missing while passing the order of confiscation, the said order would be vulnerable and liable to be set aside as order of confiscation involves a drastic action against owner of the property by which he (owner) is completely deprived of owning the property having civil consequences. Therefore, the provisions relating to effecting confiscation have to be construed strictly being penal provision. 19. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid principles of law noticed hereinabove, it is not in dispute that the respondent's vehicle was found involved in commission of offence and his vehicle has been confiscated by the learned Collector and order of confiscation has been affirmed by the appellant authority, against which revision petition was preferred, which was allowed, and order of confiscating authority confirmed by appellate authority was interfered with by revisional authority. 20. The original record has been requisitioned by this Court. 20. The original record has been requisitioned by this Court. A careful perusal of the record would show that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated by the learned Collector by order dated 26.02.2021 and show cause notice has been issued on 06.03.2021, which has been filed in the writ petition as (Annexure P-5), which reads as under : &% U;k;ky; dysDVj jktukanxkao N-x- %& %% dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= %% ¼varxZr /kkjk 47@d ¼2½ vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e 1915½ Øekad@1957@vkc-@Dys-@2021 jktukanxkao] fnukad 06@03@2021 izfr] 'kku eksgEen vk- vCnqy dey lkfdu e-u- 10@Mh lsV ,osU;w&Mh lsDVj 06 flfod lasVj fHkykbZ] nqxZ ¼N-x-½ &&0&& PkkSfd tkycka/k dk vijk/k Øekad 25@2021 fnukad 14-01-2021 dks eq[kchj ls lwpuk feyk fd vkjksih ¼1½ d`".kk mQZ jkds'k catkjs firk vkuanh catkjs lkfdu vkoklikjk okMZ ua- 09 tkykcka/kk [kSjkxढ+ ¼2½ ijethr flag firk lEiwju flag fxy lk- okMZ ua- 10 kkafruxj fHkykbZ ¼N-x-½ ¼3½ rstjke lkgw firk v'kksd lkgw lkfdu Mcjkikjk okMZ ua- 11 fHkykbZ ¼N-x-½ ds dCts ls 06 isVh vaxzsth xksok OghLdh 'kjkc izR;sd esa 50&50 ux Hkjk gqvk] dqy 300 ux ikSok dqy ek=k 54]000 cYd yhVj ,oa okgu ,d lQsn jax dh dkj Øekad lhth 07 ch,l 9874 dks fof/kor tIr fd;k x;kA tIr dh xbZ efnjk 5-0 cYd yhVj ls vf/kd gksus ij vijk/k Øekad 25@2021 iathc} fd;k x;kA ekSds ij gh pkSdh tkycka/k ds }kjk tIr'kqnk efnjk dh tkap djus ij mls fons'kh 'kjkc fl) gksuk ik;kA fons'kh 'kjkc dk vkf/kiR; fu/kkZfjr ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k esa rFkk 5-0 yhVj ls vf/kd ek=k esa j[kdj vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 34¼2½ dk vijk/k fd;k gSA pkSdh tkycka/kk ftyk jktukanxkao }kjk tIr'kqnk 'kjkc dks jktlkr fd;s tkus gsrq izdj.k bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k gSA vr% vkidks bl uksfVl ds }kjk lwpuk nh tkrh gS] fd vkids vkf/kiR; dk efnjk dks vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e 1915 dh /kkjk 47&d ¼2½ ds varxZr D;ksa u jktlkr fd;k tk;sA vki viuk tokc Lo;a vFkok vius vfHkHkk"kd ds ek/;e ls fnukad 24@03@2021 rd izkr% 11-00 cts esjs le{k izLrqr djsa] vU;Fkk vkids mRrjnkf;Ro ij efnjk dks jktlkr fd;k tk;sxkA lgha@& dysDVj jktukanxkao ¼N-x-½ Ik- Øekad @1958@vkc-@Dys-@2021 jktukanxkao]fnukad&06@03@2021 izfrfyfi %& pkSdh tkycka/kk dks dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= dh nks izfr Hkstdj funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd] lacaf/kr dks ,d izfr fuokZfgr djkdj izkfIr vfHkLohd`fr is'kh rkjh[k ds iwoZ bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA lgha@& dysDVj jktukanxkao ¼N-x-½ 21. A careful perusal of the show cause notice would show that the show cause notice has been issued under Section 47-A(2) of the Act, 1915 only for the confiscation of the seized liquor and the respondent herein has not been noticed for the proposed confiscation of his vehicle. Though in his reply, he took a different stand on two different counter affidavit but as per the notice dated 06.03.2021, the respondent was never noticed for the proposed confiscation of the vehicle, which has been confiscated by the Collector and confirmed by the appellate authority. Furthermore, it would show that the alleged notice was issued on 06.03.2021 and respondent filed reply on 16.08.2021 and thereafter no evidence of either parties were recorded by Collector and the Collector straightway after hearing the parties passed the order of confiscation and, as such, neither material collected for confiscating the vehicle was supplied to the respondent nor he was given an opportunity to make representation against proposed confiscation. As such, there is total non-compliance of Section 47-(a) (b) & (c) of the Act of 1915, as the respondent's vehicle has been confiscated but neither he has been issued notice for the proposed confiscation nor he was supplied the material collected and he was not given an opportunity of making representation against the proposed confiscation as the order of confiscation involved drastic civil consequences. No evidence was adduced by State/petitioner to prove his case before Collector. 22. In that view of the matter, we are unable to interfere with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the reasons mentioned herein above. We do not find any merit in this writ petition and it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at admission stage affirming the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the findings mentioned herein above. No order as to cost(s).