ORDER
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.
2. The order dated 20.7.2006 passed by the Collector, Keonjhar in a proceeding under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act confiscating the vehicle in question and directing sale of the same.
3. In the impugned order, the Collector, Keonjhar has held that for contravention of the provision of Clause 8 of Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 and Clause 3 of Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 the vehicle in question is liable for confiscation. However, option was not given to the petitioner as provided under second proviso to Section 6-A(1) of the Act. The second proviso to the aforesaid Section clearly gives liberty to the petitioner to exercise his option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation and in the event the owner/petitioner exercises that option, the Collector has to pass orders accordingly.
4. From the impugned order, it appears that such option had not been given to the petitioner at all. The learned Counsel for the State objects to the prayer on the ground that the order passed under Section 6-A of the Act is appealable and a writ application is not maintainable. The second objection raised by the learned Counsel is that the second proviso to Section 6-A(1) of the Act is the discretion of the Collector either to allow option or not to allow.
5. So far as the first objection raised by the learned Counsel for the State is concerned, it is clear from the averments made in paragraph-11 that the petitioner does not challenge the order of confiscation in this writ application and only challenges that portion of the order in which the Collector without giving option to the petitioner has directed for sale of the vehicle. In view of the above, the first objection raised by the learned Counsel for the State has no basis.
6. So far as second objection is concerned, this Court in the case of Bichitrananda Mohanty v. Collector, Keonjhar reported in 2006(11) O.L.R. 248 has already decided that at the end of the proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act, the owner of the vehicle carrying essential commodities has to be given an option as to whether he is willing to pay fine in lieu of confiscation and if the owner exercises such option, fine should be imposed. The Collector has lost sight of the aforesaid decision as well as the provision in the Act and directed for sale of the vehicle.
7. I, therefore set aside the impugned order so far as it relates to last part of the order directing sale of the vehicle and further direct that the Collector shall pass an order in terms of Section 6-A(1), second proviso keeping in mind the decision of this Court referred to earlier. Such decision be taken within fifteen days from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.
8. A copy of this order be handed over to the learned Counsel for the State.
9. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.