Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a partnership firm. It carries on the business of purchase and sale of foodgrains under licences granted to it under the U. P. Foodgrains Dealers licensing Order, 964. In the evening of 12th August, 19S7, the Senior Marketing Inspector, Hapur, raided the petitioner's business premises and seized a truck -load of Matar Dal (100 bags), on the belief that this commodity was being transferred to M/s. Prayag Das Ved Prakash of Ghaziabad. On 25th August, 1967, the Collector, Meerut, issued a notice requiring the petitioner to show cause why the seized goods be not confiscated under Sec. 6 -A, Essential Commodities Act, for contravention of conditions 9 and 9 -A of the aforesaid Licensing Order. The petitioner filed a representation, and contended that the goods were not being transferred as a result of any sale to any other wholesaler. So, there was no contravention of the provisions of conditions 9 or 9 -A. The District Magistrate did not accept the petitioner's contention, and, by an order dated 16th October, 1967, directed that 98 quintals 40 kgs. and 700 grams of matar dal which was seized as aforesaid, be confiscated to the State. He came to the finding that the petitioner had entered into a transaction of transfer with a firm at Ghaziabad, and the said quantity of the matar dal was being transported in pursuance thereof. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Sec. 6 -C of the Essential Commodities Act The Commissioner affirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal on 28 -12 -1967.
(2.) The order of confiscation is challenged in the present writ petition on two grounds. It was submitted that the petitioner did not contravene condition 9 of the aforesaid Licensing Order. Under that condition, a licensee is prohibited from selling foodgrains to a wholesaler in another Mandi or town either directly or through a licensee in form 'F'. It was urged that there was no evidence of any such sale. The finding was, therefore, without any evidence. I am not impressed by this submission. The Collector as well as the Commissioner have relied upon admitted facts and circumstances of the case. They have held that it was admitted that the truck, which was loaded with the seized commodity was going to Ghaziabad. There was a false number plate beneath the driver's seat. Certain papers were found at the time of seizure which indicated that the consignment was required to be delivered to a firm at Ghaziabad. That firm was a wholesale dealer. The petitioner did not offer any adequate explanation. From all these facts, the authorities could legitimately feel satisfied that the goods were being transported in pursuance of a transaction of transfer. On that finding, the order of confiscation was within the purview of Sec. 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner then challenged the constitutional validity of Ss. 6 -A and 6 -B of the Essential Commodities Act. Ss. 6 -A and 6 -B were added to the Essential Commodities Act by the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act No. XXV of 1966. Sec. 6 -A provides that where any food -grains etc., are seized in pursuance of an order made under Sec. 3 in relation thereto, they may be produced, without any reasonable delay, before the Collector of the District. The Collector, on being satisfied that there has been a contravention of an order under Sec. 3, may order confiscation of the foodgrains etc. Sec. 6 -B requires that a notice to show cause must be given to the owner of the seized article and he must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before the order of confiscation is passed. Then under Sec. 6 -C, an appeal lies against the order passed under Sec. 6 -A. Sec. 6 -D provides that the award of confiscation under this Act by the Collector shall not prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person affected is liable under this Act.;