JUDGMENT
K.R. Vyas, J.
1. Rule Mr. Mankad learned A.G.P. waives service on behalf of the respondents. At the request of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing to-day.
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19-6-1996 passed by the State Government in appeal whereby the State Government has modified the order passed by the District Supply Officer, respondent No. 2 herein, who imposed penalty of confiscation of 25% of the goods seized valued at Rs. 15,156/-. However, by the impugned order, the State Government has in appeal preferred by the petitioner enhanced the quantity of commodities confiscated from 25% to 100%. The grievance made by the petitioner is that the State Government has no power to enhance the quantity of commodities confiscated, in absence of any cross-appeal or any notice issued to the petitioner by the State Government. Section 6(c) of the Essential Commodities Act deals with the appeal. Sub-section (1) of Section 6(c) which is relevant for our purpose reads as under:
6-C. Appeal: (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confisaction under Section 6A may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to the State Government concerned and the State Government shall, after giving an opportunity in the appellant lo be heard, pass such order as it may think fit, confirming modifying or annulling the order appealed against.
Reading the said provision, it is clear that even though the State Government has power to confirm, modify or annul the order against which the appeal is filed, the same is required lo be exercised judiciously. Even though the power to modify the order is there, the same cannot be exercised against the appellant causing prejudice to him. If the modification for enhancement of penalty is required, which is against the interest of the party, the party concerned is required to be heard afresh. In any case, the party cannot be put in a worsen position merely because he has approached the appellate authority. In the instant case, admittedly, the department has not filed any cross-appeal against the order of the District Supply Officer and in absence thereof, the State Government cannot modify the order appealed against by enhancing the quantity of commodity confiscated from 25% to 100%. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the State Government vide Annexure-C dated 16-6-1996 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Act and deserves to be set aside.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no interference is called for so far as the Annexure-B passed by the respondent No. 2, i.e., District Supply Officer confiscating the goods in question to the extent of 25% and the same is therefore, accordingly confirmed.
The petition is accordingly allowed. The order Annexure-C dated 19-6-1996 passed by the respondent No. 1 is set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
