Model: confiscation order under s.6-A, EC Act

The “6-A case” is where a Deputy Collector learns to write a genuinely adversarial order: there is a seizure, a noticee with counsel, disputed evidence about whether rice is PDS rice, and a judicial appellate authority waiting under s.6-C. The Telangana High Court has returned seized stock and cut confiscation percentages where the evidence discussion was thin — so the model below spends its length exactly where the appeals are won and lost: on the evidence and the reasons.

When you need this

A civil-supplies or joint task-force raid seizes suspected PDS rice — in transit toward the Maharashtra border, or stocked in a mill without matching purchase records — under the Telangana PDS (Control) Order, 2016, a control order issued under s.3 of the EC Act. Section 6-A requires the seizure to be reported to the District Collector without unreasonable delay; the Collector, if satisfied there has been a contravention, may confiscate the commodity, its packing, and the vehicle or conveyance used. In Telangana practice the power is exercised in the Collector’s name through the Joint Collector / Additional Collector (Revenue), and the enquiry — statements, sampling, hearing, draft order — is classic Deputy Collector work. Before any confiscation, s.6-B mandates a written show-cause notice informing the grounds, an opportunity to make a written representation, and a personal hearing.

The model

PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
[DISTRICT] DISTRICT
(For and on behalf of the District Collector under the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955)
Present: [NAME OF OFFICER], Joint Collector

Procs. Rc.No. [FILE NO.]/[YEAR]-C.S., dated [DATE]

Sub:  Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — seizure of [QUANTITY] quintals
      of rice suspected to be PDS rice and lorry No. [VEHICLE NO.] at
      [PLACE] on [DATE] — confiscation proceedings under s.6-A —
      show-cause under s.6-B — final orders — Issued.

Read: 1. Seizure report of the [DESIGNATION — e.g. Assistant Supply
         Officer / Tahsildar], [PLACE], dated [DATE], received in this
         office on [DATE], with the seizure panchanama dated [DATE].
      2. Statements of the driver [NAME] dated [DATE] and of [NAME OF
         OWNER/CLAIMANT] dated [DATE].
      3. Sample analysis report No. [NUMBER] dated [DATE] of [ANALYSING
         AUTHORITY].
      4. Show-cause notice under s.6-B issued in this office Rc. even
         No. dated [DATE], and the acknowledgment thereof.
      5. Written representation of [NAME OF NOTICEE] dated [DATE].
      6. Record of personal hearing held on [DATE].

ORDER:

1. On [DATE], at [PLACE] on the [ROAD] road, the officers 1st read
   intercepted lorry No. [VEHICLE NO.] carrying [QUANTITY] quintals of
   rice in [NUMBER] gunny bags. The driver produced no way-bill or
   purchase record. The stock and vehicle were seized under the
   panchanama 1st read, and the seizure was reported to the District
   Collector on [DATE], the day following the seizure.

2. A show-cause notice under s.6-B was issued on [DATE] to [NAME OF
   NOTICEE], owner of the stock and of the vehicle, stating the grounds
   of the proposed confiscation. He filed the representation 5th read
   and was heard in person, with counsel, on [DATE].

3. The case of the noticee is that the rice is his own produce
   purchased from cultivators of [VILLAGE] and was being moved to
   [PLACE] for sale, and that the vehicle owner had no knowledge of any
   contravention.

4. The evidence on record is discussed as follows:

   (a) The sample analysis 3rd read reports the presence of fortified
       rice kernels (FRK) in the proportion characteristic of PDS
       stock, and a broken-grain percentage matching custom-milled
       rice, not raw market produce.

   (b) The noticee produced no purchase vouchers, weighment slips or
       payment records for the claimed purchase from cultivators,
       though called upon in the notice to do so.

   (c) The driver's statement 2nd read is that the bags were loaded at
       night from [PLACE] and that he was instructed to avoid the
       [PLACE] check-post. The gunny bags bear markings of [MARKING
       DESCRIPTION] as recorded in the panchanama.

   (d) As against this, the noticee's representation contains a bare
       assertion of purchase, unsupported by any document, and does
       not explain the FRK content of the stock.

5. On the material aforesaid, I am satisfied that the seized rice is
   rice obtained from the public distribution system and was being
   transported for purposes other than distribution under the system,
   in contravention of the Telangana State Public Distribution System
   (Control) Order, 2016, issued under s.3 of the Act.

6. On the question of the vehicle: the driver's statement shows the
   transport was arranged with knowledge of its unlawful character;
   however, [WHERE THE RECORD SO SHOWS: the registered owner of the
   vehicle has appeared and shown that the vehicle was engaged on hire
   and that he had taken reasonable precautions / no such showing is
   made]. Considering the material and the value of the vehicle in
   proportion to the offence, [PROPORTIONATE DIRECTION — e.g. the
   vehicle is ordered to be released on payment of a sum of Rs.
   [AMOUNT] in lieu of confiscation / the vehicle is confiscated].

7. In the result, in exercise of the powers under s.6-A of the
   Essential Commodities Act, 1955:

   (a) The seized stock of [QUANTITY] quintals of rice, together with
       its packing, is CONFISCATED to the Government. The stock shall
       be disposed of as per the instructions in force and the sale
       proceeds credited to Government.

   (b) Lorry No. [VEHICLE NO.] is [CONFISCATED / ORDERED TO BE RELEASED
       to its registered owner on payment of Rs. [AMOUNT] in lieu of
       confiscation, within [PERIOD]].

8. Under s.6-C of the Act, any person aggrieved by this order may
   appeal, within one month from the date of communication of this
   order, to the judicial authority appointed by the State Government
   under that section. If this order is annulled or modified in appeal,
   or if the person concerned is acquitted in the connected
   prosecution, the price of the confiscated commodity shall be
   refundable as provided in the Act.

                                             [SIGNATURE]
                                             ([NAME OF OFFICER])
                                             Joint Collector,
                                             [DISTRICT]
To
   [NAME OF NOTICEE], [ADDRESS] (by registered post, acknowledgment
   due).
Copy to: The District Supply Officer; the [SEIZING OFFICER]; the
Station House Officer, [P.S.] (in Cr.No. [NUMBER], if registered); the
custodian of the seized property; stock file.

Anatomy — why each part is there

1. The heading showing whose power is exercised. Section 6-A vests the power in the Collector; where the Joint/Additional Collector passes the order in the district’s standing arrangement, the heading says so on its face. An order silent about the source of authority invites the first appellate ground — that the officer who signed had no power to.
2. The seizure-and-report recital, with dates (para 1). Section 6-A requires the seizure to be reported to the Collector without unreasonable delay, and unexplained delay can vitiate the proceedings. Reciting both dates — seizure and receipt of report — shows the statutory condition met, or forces the file to confront the delay and explain it.
3. The s.6-B compliance recital (para 2). No confiscation without a written notice informing the grounds, a written representation, and a personal hearing — the section is mandatory and the appellate authority checks it first. The recital gives the notice by number and date, the representation, and the hearing with counsel: the complete natural-justice chain in three lines.
4. The noticee’s case, stated fairly (para 3). An order that never states the defence cannot claim to have considered it. Summarising the representation honestly — before demolishing it — is what “personal hearing” looks like on paper.
5. The evidence discussion (para 4). The spine of the order, and the part the Telangana cases punish when it is missing. The evidentiary triad in rice cases is: the analysis report (fortified-kernel presence and broken percentage tying the stock to custom-milled PDS rice), the absence of purchase records the trader ought to have, and the transport circumstances (night loading, check-post avoidance, bag markings) from the driver’s statement and the panchanama. Sub-para (d) closes the loop by weighing the defence against each strand. A confiscation resting on “the stock appears to be PDS rice” — without this discussion — comes back from appeal with the stock ordered returned.
6. The satisfaction finding naming the control order (para 5). Confiscation requires a contravention of an order under s.3; in Telangana that is the PDS (Control) Order, 2016. The finding must name it, because “contravention of the EC Act” in the abstract is not a thing — the Act operates through its control orders.
7. The vehicle paragraph with proportionality (para 6). The section reaches the conveyance, but appellate courts routinely modulate — releasing vehicles to owners who show ignorance and due care, or substituting a payment in lieu. Discussing the owner’s showing separately, and choosing between confiscation and release-on-payment with reasons, is what keeps this part of the order intact; mechanical confiscation of a hired lorry is the most-reversed direction in the whole jurisdiction.
8. The operative para, split by item (para 7). Stock and vehicle get separate, executable directions — including disposal of the stock and credit of proceeds, because confiscated grain rots while files travel.
9. The s.6-C appeal-and-refund clause (para 8). Appeal within one month to the judicial authority appointed by the State Government; and the statutory promise that annulment, modification or acquittal brings a refund of the commodity’s price. Stating both is fair-order practice and spares the office the “nobody told me” round of litigation. Confirm the current state notification designating the appellate judicial authority before citing a designation by name.

Adaptation traps

• Confiscating on suspicion dressed as satisfaction. The recurring appellate lesson in Telangana is that thin proof of PDS sourcing — no sampling, no records comparison, only the seizing officer’s assertion — gets confiscation annulled or scaled down. If the analysis report is not yet on file, the order is not ready to pass.
• Skipping or shortcutting s.6-B. A combined “notice-cum-order”, a hearing offered but never held, or a notice that does not state the grounds each voids the confiscation regardless of the merits. The hearing record (Read item 6) must actually exist.
• Forgetting the parallel prosecution. Confiscation under 6-A is independent of prosecution before the court, but the two interact: an acquittal triggers the refund consequence, and the seized property’s custody must be coordinated so that neither proceeding strands the other. The copy-to line to the SHO exists for this.
• One order for many seizures. Batch-processing a month of seizures in one omnibus order, with a table instead of an evidence discussion per case, produces one appealable defect multiplied by the number of rows.
• Ignoring interim-release orders. Vehicles are routinely released interim by courts during the proceedings (“zimma”). The final order must deal with the vehicle as it actually stands — on release, with bonds — not as if it were still in the yard.

An illustrative skeleton for learning — always draft from the current Act, Rules and standing instructions, and have your first drafts settled by your senior.