R.N. Misra, J. - (1.)THIS application by a dealer in essential commodities is directed against the order of confiscation passed by the Collector of Cuttack and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Cuttack in appeal.
(2.)ADMITTEDLY the Petitioner is a dealer in essential commodities to whom the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 is applicable. The Inspector of Vigilance seized from the shop premises four reams of paper, 50 Kgs. of mustard seeds, 80 Kgs. of sugar, two tins of groundnut oil and half a tin of vanaspati ghee and the Collector of Cuttack asked the Petitioner to show cause under Section 6 -B of the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act of 1974 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') as to why the commodities may not be confiscated. The Petitioner showed cause and thereafter an order of confiscation was passed. In appeal, that order has been upheld.
Section 6 -B of the Act provides:

No order confiscating any essential commodity,... shall be made under Section 6 -A unless the owner of such essential commodity,... or the person from receptacle, whom it is seized

(a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity.

(b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation; and

(c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter." The notice in terms of Section 6 -B(1)(a) issued to the Petitioner runs thus:

In the Court of the District Magistrate and Collector, Cuttack.

Misc. Case No. 92 of 1975.

(Under Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 1974 No. 10764/24/9/75

State ....... Petitioner. Vrs.

M/s. Ganeswar Sahoo and Brothers.... Opp. party.

To

M/s. Ganeswar Sahoo, At/P.O. Salapada,

P.S. Jajpur, Dist. Cuttack.

You are here by directed to appear in person or through any legal representative to show cause on 30 -9 -1975 at 11 A.M. as to why the following articles seized by P.K. Mohanty. Inspector, Vigilance, in P.S. Case No. 239 of 75 for contravention of Stocks and Prices Control Order, 1973 will not be confiscated under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act. 1974 and put to sale as admissible under the law, failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in this regard and action as deemed proper will be taken against you.

Given this day 19th September, 1975 under my seal and signature.

Details of seized properties.

x x x

Petitioner showed cause on 27 -10 -1975 by saying:

That the articles seized under the seizure list were not liable to be seized as the opposite party has not violated any of the Act and order mentioned above.

The main point for consideration, "is as to whether the notice extracted above complies with the requirement of Section 6 -B of the Act. Undoubtedly in the scheme of Section 6 -B of the Act has been implanted the rule of natural justice; the ground for initiation of the proceeding for confiscation is required to be disclosed; the delinquent is to be provided an opportunity to represent his case in writing and a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be granted. Parliament has intended to put the delinquent to notice of the grounds on which action is proposed to be taken. The proceeding is summary and since wide powers have been vested in the appropriate authority, it must have been the intention of Parliament that the procedure prescribed has to be strictly followed. When there is a mandate that the grounds on which action is proposed to have to be disclosed, it necessarily requires the appropriate details to be provided and not a bald mention to be made that there has been contravention of the statutory Order. Analysing the Order contravention of which has given rise to the proceeding, it would appear that default leading to initiation of proceeding can be manifold. There may be violation for failure to display any list at all; it may be that though a list has been displayed it did not contain a full disclosure of the stocks held; it may also be that while there was a disclosure of the entire stocks, prices had not been appropriately notified. If the statute intends that an opportunity to show cause has to be given, it is inherent in the process of requiring an opportunity to be afforded that it must be complete and adequate so that the delinquent would be in a position to show cause. There is no scope for the contention as advanced by learned Government Advocate that once default of a particular Order made under the Act is indicated, it is enough compliance of the requirements of the statute. Since the procedure is summary and delay in the matter of dealing with the situation is not intended, this is an additional ground for holding that the notice to be Issued must be so complete that the delinquent has not to make a further enquiry to find out on what ground the proceeding has been initiated. Mr. Misra for the Petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Abdul Kader v. State of Kerala, 1975 K.L.T. 151, wherein a similar order of confiscation was quashed because the notice under Section 6 -B of the Act had not disclosed the place, day and time of seizure. Another decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Dharani Trading Co. v. State of A.P, (1974) M.L.J. (Crl.) 593, was also relied upon by Mr. Misra wherein the scope and ambit of Section 6 -B of the Act has been indicated. Therein several authorities have been referred to and the position has been summarised thus:

1. The scope and extent of reasonable opportunity must be judged in the light of the constitution of the statutory body which has to function in accordance with the rules laid down by the Legislature;

2. Whether an opportunity has been afforded and whether that opportunity was or was not reasonable in a given case should be ascertained by the Court on an encyclopedic view of all material in the case;

3. In every case the minimum requirement of hearing must be satisfied and there must be a fair and honest determination of the question;

(3.)THE test for the minimum requirement is satisfied if the person concerned was given proper opportunity of making a representation or statement that would dissipate the suspicion of the authority competent to take action; and