Confiscation of goods not mentioned in the show-cause notice is illegal and exceeds jurisdictional scope.

The applicant operates 'Vinayak Petrol Pump' in Mundra.

On August 29, 2005, the Mamlatdar conducted a surprise inspection and seized 2267.84 liters of diesel (₹74,022/-) and 3757.60 liters of petrol (₹1,65,146/-) totaling ₹2,39,168/- due to suspected irregularities.

On April 29, 2006, the Collector issued a show-cause notice under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, which specifically alleged irregularities only regarding the diesel stock (transportation exceeding limits and billing interpolations).

Despite the notice being silent on petrol, the Collector ordered the confiscation of both stocks.

The 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhuj, dismissed the applicant's appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 14/2006) on November 14, 2011, upholding the 100% confiscation.

The applicant moved the High Court in revision.

Whether the confiscation of the petrol stock was legally sustainable when the show-cause notice only alleged irregularities regarding diesel.

Whether the lower authorities erred in law by ordering confiscation of goods without demonstrating a contravention of the relevant Control Order.

The court applied Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the procedural requirements of Section 397 and 401 of the CrPC (corresponding to Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS).

It relied on the principle that the Department has no authority to seize goods unless a specific contravention of a Control Order (specifically the Order of 1981) is established, as held in *M.D. Agency vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.* (1997 (1) GLH 768) and (1997 (2) GCD 439).

The High Court observed that the show-cause notice issued by the Collector was strictly confined to diesel stock irregularities, such as illegal transportation and price board discrepancies.

The court found that there were no allegations, findings, or reasons assigned regarding any contravention of law concerning the petrol stock.

The court reasoned that since the Department failed to demonstrate any violation of the 1981 Control Order regarding petrol, the seizure and subsequent 100% confiscation of petrol were outside the scope of the legal proceedings.

The Sessions Court was found to have misread the relevant precedents and erred by upholding a judgment that exceeded the scope of the original show-cause notice.

It held that the confiscation of 3757.60 liters of petrol was illegal as it was not covered by the show-cause notice.

The court quashed and set aside the orders of the Sessions Court (dated 14.11.2011) and the Collector (dated 29.04.2006) specifically regarding the confiscation of petrol worth ₹1,65,146/-.

The Collector, Bhuj, was directed to refund the amount corresponding to the confiscated petrol stock to the applicant.