Confiscation under Section 6A requires a specific finding of violating a Section 3 order.

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Kaali Maa Trading Company, had booked 365 bags of wheat for transportation to Vijay Roller Flour Mill, Hajipur.

The consignment, transported in truck bearing registration no. UP-52F-5792, was intercepted and seized on suspicion of illegal dealing or black-marketing.

A criminal case was registered, investigation was conducted, and a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner; the criminal trial was pending.

Separately, confiscation proceedings were initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Although the petitioner submitted a reply to the notice, the District Magistrate, West Champaran, by order dated 22 May 2017 in Confiscation Case No. CRM-24/2015-16, confiscated the wheat.

The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that no violation of an order issued under Section 3 of the Act was established, his reply was not considered, and the mandatory requirements of Sections 6-A and 6-B had not been complied with.

Whether confiscation under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 could be ordered without a specific finding that the seized wheat was connected with a contravention of an order issued under Section 3 of the Act.

Whether the impugned confiscation order was vitiated by failure to consider the petitioner’s reply and by denial of a proper opportunity of hearing under Section 6-B of the Act.

Whether the mere submission of a charge-sheet in the related criminal case could independently justify confiscation under Section 6-A of the Act.

Section 6-A permits confiscation only where an essential commodity has been seized in connection with a contravention of an order issued under Section 3 of the Act; therefore, violation of such an order is a condition precedent to confiscation.

Section 6-B requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to explain before confiscation.

The Court relied on Kailash Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2007 (5) SCC 769, which held that violation of a Section 3 order and a valid seizure are prerequisites for confiscation under Section 6-A.

It also relied on Ranjeet Kumar Sah v. State of Bihar, 2009 (e) PLJR 1725471, which held that vague allegations of black-marketing, without identifying the specific Section 3 order allegedly violated, cannot sustain confiscation.

Submission of a charge-sheet in a criminal case does not, by itself, satisfy the statutory requirements for confiscation.

The Court found that the impugned order merely confiscated the 365 bags of wheat under Section 6-A but did not identify or record any specific contravention of an order issued under Section 3 of the Act.

The allegations of illegal dealing or black-marketing and the subsequent filing of a charge-sheet could not replace the statutory requirement of establishing a relevant Section 3 violation.

Further, the order failed to duly consider the petitioner’s reply, demonstrating non-application of mind and breach of the procedural safeguards under Section 6-B.

Since the necessary jurisdictional condition for confiscation was absent and the petitioner’s defence was not properly considered, the confiscation order was legally unsustainable.

It held that confiscation under Section 6-A could not be sustained in the absence of a specific finding regarding violation of an order issued under Section 3, and that the charge-sheet alone was insufficient to justify confiscation.

The order dated 22 May 2017 passed by the District Magistrate, West Champaran, in Confiscation Case No. CRM-24/2015-16 was quashed and set aside.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.